Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-830.5
[L 1986, c 314, §63; am L 1992, c 289, §1; am L 1993, c 14, §1; am L 2006, c 116, §6; am L 2014, c 111, §20; am L 2021, c 147, §4; am L 2022, c 54, §2]
Where defendant returned new vehicle after 72 hour possession and prosecution was unable to prove any economic loss to car dealership, no intent to deprive dealership of significant portion of vehicle's economic value, use, or benefit. 86 H. 207, 948 P.2d 1048 (1997).
Where appeals court correctly held that defendant's theft offense under §708-830(1) and subsection (1)(a) required proof of a value element which defendant's federal conspiracy offense did not, and was designed to prevent a substantially different harm--the deprivation of property rights versus the threat posed by agreements to commit criminal conduct, defendant's prosecution in state court was not barred under §701-112 and the circuit court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss in this respect. 126 H. 205, 269 P.3d 740 (2011).
Based on petitioner's performance of petitioner's part of the contract between homeowner and petitioner and the failure of the respondent State to produce evidence of the value of the work completed by petitioner, the State failed to establish that petitioner deprived homeowner of property exceeding $20,000 in value, the threshold for first degree theft. 129 H. 414, 301 P.3d 1255 (2013).
Circuit court erred in declining to give requested jury instruction on lesser-included offense of theft in the second degree under §708-831, because a juror could rationally have chosen not to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of the transactions causing the theft at issue to exceed $20,000 had occurred. Thus, there was a rational basis for the jury to acquit defendant of theft in the first degree under this section and convict defendant of theft in the second degree under §708-831, and the error was not harmless. 139 H. 94, 384 P.3d 870 (2016).