THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SHOPLIFTING

THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SHOPLIFTING: HRS § 708-831(1)(b) [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Theft in the Second Degree. A person commits the offense of Theft in the Second Degree if, with intent to defraud, he/she conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, the value of which property exceeds $300. There are four material elements of the offense of Theft in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These four elements are: 1. That, on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant concealed or took possession of the goods or merchandise of (name of store or retail establishment); and 2. That (name of store or retail establishment) was a store or retail establishment; and 3. That the value of goods or merchandise of (name of store or retail establishment) exceeded $300; and 4. That the Defendant either (a) intended to use deception to injure (name of store or retail establishment)’s interest, which had value, in which case the required state of mind as to each of the foregoing elements is “intentionally,” or (b) knew that he/she was facilitating an injury to (name of store or retail establishment)’s interest, which had value, in which case the required state of mind as to each of the foregoing elements is “knowingly.” Notes H.R.S. §§ 703-831(1)(b), 708-830(8), 702-206(1) and (2). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: State v. Shinyama, 101 Hawai‘i 389, 69 P.3d 517 (2003) (setting forth a suggested instruction for the offense of theft in the second degree by shoplifting). For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the property, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. For prima facie inference where the goods or merchandise in question had an unaltered price or name tag or other marking, see instruction 10.21A. For state of mind regarding value of property taken, see State v. Cabrera, 90 Hawai‘i 359, 978 P.2d 797 (1999).