UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL OF PROPELLED VEHICLE – OPERATING

UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL OF PROPELLED VEHICLE – OPERATING: H.R.S. § 708-836 [In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint, the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the offense of Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle. A person commits the offense of Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle if he/she intentionally or knowingly* exerts unauthorized control over another’s propelled vehicle by operating the vehicle without the owner’s consent. There are three material elements of the offense of Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These three elements are: 1. That, on or about (date) in the [City and] County of (name of county), the Defendant exerted unauthorized control over another’s propelled vehicle; and 2. That the Defendant did so by operating the vehicle without the owner’s consent; and 3. That the Defendant did so intentionally or knowingly*. “Owner” means the [registered owner of the propelled vehicle or the unrecorded owner of the vehicle pending transfer of ownership][legal owner, provided there is no registered owner of the propelled vehicle or unrecorded owner of the vehicle pending transfer of ownership]. “Propelled vehicle” means an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, or other motor-propelled vehicle. Notes HRS §§ 708-836, 702-206(1). For definition of states of mind, see instructions: For statutory affirmative defense to this offense, see instruction 10.24A. *The term “knowingly” is to be included within the general statement and elements of the offense when the incident occurred on or after 04/12/99. See State v. Palisbo, 93 Hawai‘i 344, 3 P.3d 510 (2000) (setting forth the following: (1) knowledge that vehicle is stolen is not an element of the offense of unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle; (2) mistake of fact defense was not available to defendant in prosecution for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, where there was no evidence that defendant mistakenly believed that he had permission of stolen automobile’s owner to drive automobile and; (3) that a “good faith belief” defense was not available to defendant in prosecution for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, where there was no evidence that defendant believed in good faith that codefendant who allegedly procured stolen automobile was authorized to use automobile by its owner).