THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SERVICES

THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE – SERVICES: 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 he/she intentionally obtains services, known by him/her to be available only for compensation, by [deception] [false token] [other means to avoid payment for the services] and the value of the services exceeds $300. There are five material elements of the offense of Theft in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These five elements are: 1. That, on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant obtained services by [deception] [false token] [other means to avoid payment for the services]; and 2. That the Defendant did so intentionally; and 3. That the Defendant knew, at that time, the services were available only for compensation; and 4. That the Defendant was aware or believed the value of the services exceeded $300; and 5. That the value of the services exceeded $300. Notes H.R.S. §§ 708-831(1)(b), 708-830(4), 702-206(1) and (2). For definition of states of mind, see instructions: For definition of terms defined by HRS Chapter 708, see instructions: 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 when there is evidence that the services Defendant received are ordinarily paid upon rendering and Defendant absconded without payment, see instruction 10.14A. H.R.S. §§708-830(5) and 708-830.5(1)(a) [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Theft in the First Degree. A person commits the offense of Theft in the First Degree if, having control over the disposition of services of another to which he/she is not entitled, he/she intentionally diverts those services to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of a person not entitled to those services, and the value of those services exceeds $20,000. There are six material elements of the offense of Theft in the First Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These six elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant had control over the disposition of services of another person; and 2. That the Defendant was not entitled to those services; and 3. That the Defendant diverted those services [to his/her own benefit] [to the benefit of a person not entitled to the services]; and 4. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, and 3; and 5. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the services exceeded $20,000; and 6 That the value of the services exceeded $20,000. Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(5) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. H.R.S. §§708-830(5) and 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, having control over the disposition of services of another to which he/she is not entitled, he/she intentionally diverts those services to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of a person not entitled to those services, and the value of those services exceeds $300. There are six material elements of the offense of Theft in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These six elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant had control over the disposition of services of another person; and 2. That the Defendant was not entitled to those services; and 3. That the Defendant diverted those services [to his/her own benefit] [to the benefit of a person not entitled to the services]; and 4. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, and 3; and 5. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the services exceeded $300; and 6. That the value of the services exceeded $300. Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(5) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. Disposition of Funds: H.R.S. §§708-830(6)(a) and 708-830.5(1)(a) [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Theft in the First Degree. A person commits the offense of Theft in the First Degree if he/she intentionally obtains property from anyone [upon an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make specified payment or other disposition [from the property or its proceeds] [from his/her own property reserved in equivalent amount], deals with the property as his/her own, and fails to make the required payment or disposition, and the value of the property exceeds $20,000. There are seven material elements of the offense of Theft in the First Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These seven elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant obtained property from anyone; and 2. That the Defendant did so [upon an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make specified payment or other disposition [from the property or its proceeds] [from his/her own property reserved in equivalent amount]; and 3. That the Defendant dealt with the property as his/her own; and 4. That the Defendant failed to make the required payment or disposition; and 5. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, 3 and 4; and 6. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the property exceeded $20,000; and 7. That the value of the property exceeded $20,000. [It does not matter that it is impossible to identify particular property as belonging to the other person at the time of the Defendant's failure to make the required payment or disposition.] [If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was an officer or employee of the government or a financial institution, you may, but are not required to, infer that he/she knew of his/her legal obligations with respect to making payments and other dispositions. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew of his/her legal obligation with respect to making payments and other dispositions.] [If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the Defendant, as an officer or an employee of the government or a financial institution, failed to pay or account upon lawful demand] [an audit reveals a falsification of accounts], you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant intentionally dealt with the property as his/her own. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally dealt with the property as his/her own.] Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(6)(a) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. Disposition of Funds: H.R.S. §§708-830(6)(a) and 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 he/she intentionally obtains property from anyone [upon an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make specified payment or other disposition [from the property or its proceeds] [from his/her own property reserved in equivalent amount], deals with the property as his/her own, and fails to make the required payment or disposition, and the value of the property exceeds $300. There are seven material elements of the offense of Theft in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These seven elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant obtained property from anyone; and 2. That the Defendant did so [upon an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make specified payment or other disposition [from the property or its proceeds] [from his/her own property reserved in equivalent amount]; and 3. That the Defendant dealt with the property as his/her own; and 4. That the Defendant failed to make the required payment or disposition; and 5. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, 3 and 4; and 6. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the property exceeded $300; and 7. That the value of the property exceeded $300. [It does not matter that it is impossible to identify particular property as belonging to the other person at the time of the Defendant's failure to make the required payment or disposition.] [If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was an officer or employee of the government or a financial institution, you may, but are not required to, infer that he/she knew of his/her legal obligations with respect to making payments and other dispositions. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew of his/her legal obligation with respect to making payments and other dispositions.] [If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the Defendant, as an officer or an employee of the government or a financial institution, failed to pay or account upon lawful demand] [an audit reveals a falsification of accounts], you may, but are not required to, infer that the Defendant intentionally dealt with the property as his/her own. If you do so infer, you must nevertheless consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally dealt with the property as his/her own.] Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(6)(a) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. Disposition of Funds: H.R.S. §§708-830(6)(b) and 708-830.5(1)(a) [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Theft in the First Degree. A person commits the offense of Theft in the First Degree if he/she intentionally obtains personal services from an employee [with an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make a payment or other disposition of funds to a third person on account of the employment, and fails to make the payment or disposition at the proper time, and the value of the services exceeds $20,000. There are six material elements of the offense of Theft in the First Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These six elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant obtained personal services from an employee; and 2. That the Defendant did so [with an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make a payment or other disposition of funds to a third person on account of the employment; and 3. That the Defendant failed to make the payment or disposition at the proper time; and 4. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, and 3; and 5. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the services exceeded $20,000; and 6. That the value of the services exceeded $20,000. Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(6)(b) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A. Disposition of Funds: H.R.S. §§708-830(6)(b) and 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 he/she intentionally obtains personal services from an employee [with an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make a payment or other disposition of funds to a third person on account of the employment, and fails to make the payment or disposition at the proper time, and the value of the services exceeds $300. There are six material elements of the offense of Theft in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These six elements are: 1. That on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant obtained personal services from an employee; and 2. That the Defendant did so [with an agreement] [subject to a known legal obligation] to make a payment or other disposition of funds to a third person on account of the employment; and 3. That the Defendant failed to make the payment or disposition at the proper time; and 4. That the Defendant acted intentionally as to elements 1, 2, and 3; and 5. That the Defendant was aware or believed that the value of the services exceeded $300; and 6. That the value of the services exceeded $300. Notes H.R.S. §§703-830(6)(b) and 708-831(1)(b). For definition of states of mind, see instruction: For definition of terms defined by H.R.S. Chapter 708, see instructions: For prima facie inference and defense regarding Defendant’s state of mind as to the value of the services, see instruction For statutory defense, see instruction 10.11A.