INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SHOPLIFTING

INFERENCE: THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SHOPLIFTING: HRS § 708-830(8) If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the incident the goods or merchandise in question had an unaltered price or name tag or other marking [or there was a printed register receipt], you may, but are not required to, infer the value and ownership of such goods or merchandise from the price or name tag or other marking [or the printed register receipt]. 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 the value and ownership of such goods or merchandise. Notes HRS § 708-830(8); HRE Rule 306(a)(3). 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 at the time of the incident the goods or merchandise in question had an altered price or name tag or other marking. The printed register receipt language is applicable to offenses that occur after May 2, 2001. See 2001 Haw. Sess. L. Act 87.