INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE – SERVICES

INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE – SERVICES: HRS § 708-830(4) If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the services the Defendant received are ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of them and that the Defendant absconded without payment or offer to pay, you may, but are not required to, infer that the services were obtained by deception. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the services were obtained by deception. Notes HRS § 708-830(4). State v. Mitchell, 88 Hawai‘i 216, 965 Hawai‘i 149 (App. 1997); State v. Tabigne, 88 Hawai‘i 296, 966 P.2d 608 (1998). This instruction is appropriate when there is evidence that the services the Defendant received are ordinarily paid immediately upon rendering and Defendant absconded without payment. It may be appropriate for the court to submit a definition of "absconded" to the jury.