HRS 0708-0801 ANNOTATIONS
COMMENTARY ON §708-801
Section 708-801 provides rules for determining the value of property and the actor's state of mind with respect to the value of the property when these factors are required to be determined by the definitions of substantive offenses. As in the case of statutory definitions, a discussion of the provisions relating to value is found in the commentary on subsequent sections in this chapter.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §708-801
Act 175, Session Laws 1987, provided for the valuation of property or services under this section to be the replacement cost only if the property cannot be found, or where the value of the property or services cannot be ascertained. Senate Conference Committee Report No. 72, House Conference Committee Report No. 54.
Act 49, Session Laws 1998, clarified that the valuation of property taken in the commission of a theft should be determined by the value of the property "taken" rather than the value of the property "damaged". The legislature found that under this section, the law provided that valuation amounts were to be determined by the property "damaged" whereas it should logically be determined by the value of the property "taken". The legislature further found that the law needed to be changed to assure that a victim's losses were fairly assessed and adequately compensated. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3230.
Case Notes
Where defendant testified that defendant harbored no belief at all regarding the value of the stolen property, paragraph (5) could not afford defendant a mitigating defense to second degree theft under §708-831(1)(b). 90 H. 359, 978 P.2d 797.
Valuation of property as applied to violation of §708-831(1)(b). 1 H. App. 644, 623 P.2d 898.
Due process right violated where circuit court's instruction to jury regarding the statutory presumption created by paragraph (4) failed to further instruct jury pursuant to HRE rule 306(a) that the presumption is merely a permissible inference of fact and that in order to apply the presumption, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists beyond a reasonable doubt. 88 H. 216 (App.), 965 P.2d 149.