Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-104 (2020)
Theft of services
-
A person commits theft of services if, with purpose to defraud:
- The person purposely obtains a service that he or she knows to be available only for compensation, by deception, threat, or other means to avoid payment for the service; or
- Having control over the disposition of a service to which he or she is not entitled, the person purposely diverts the service to his or her own benefit or to the benefit of another person not entitled to the service.
- In a circumstance in which payment is ordinarily made immediately upon the rendering of a service, absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to a presumption that the actor obtained the service with the purpose of avoiding payment.
-
Theft of services is a:
-
Class B felony if:
- The value of the service is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or more;
- The service is obtained by the threat of serious physical injury to any person or destruction of the occupiable structure of another person;
- The service is obtained by threat, and the actor stands in a confidential or fiduciary relationship to the person threatened; or
-
The theft of services involves a theft of a utility service that results in:
- Any contamination of a line, pipe, waterline, meter, or other utility property; or
- A spill, dumping, or release of any hazardous material into the environment;
-
Class C felony if:
- The value of the service is less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) but more than five thousand dollars ($5,000); or
- The service is obtained by threat;
- Class D felony if the value of the service is five thousand dollars ($5,000) or less but more than one thousand dollars ($1,000); or
-
Class A misdemeanor if the theft of services:
- Involves a theft of a utility service that results in the destruction or damage to a line, pipe, waterline, meter, or any other property of the utility; or
- Is otherwise committed.
-
Class B felony if:
-
- In addition to any other fine that may be levied under § 5-4-201, any person found guilty of theft of services under this section is required to make full restitution to the utility from which the service was obtained if the theft of services involves the theft of a utility service such as a gas, electricity, water, telephone, or cable television service.
-
For a prosecution brought under this subsection to enable the court to properly fix the amount of restitution, after appropriate investigation the prosecuting attorney shall recommend an amount that would make the utility whole with respect to:
- The value of the service received;
-
The cost of repair of any damage to any:
- Line;
- Pipe;
- Waterline;
- Meter; or
- Other utility property; and
- Any other measurable monetary damage directly related to the offense, including the expense of investigation.
- If the defendant disagrees with the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney, he or she is entitled to introduce evidence in mitigation of the amount recommended.
- The monetary judgment for restitution, as provided in this section, becomes a judgment against the offender and has the same force and effect as any other civil judgment recorded in this state.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2204; 1977, No. 360, § 9; 1983, No. 719, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2204; Acts 1997, No. 518, § 1; 1999, No. 986, § 1; 2011, No. 570, § 24; 2011, No. 1120, § 15.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2011, No. 570, § 1, provided:
“Legislative intent. The intent of this act is to implement comprehensive measures designed to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and contain correction costs.”
Amendments. The 2011 amendment by No. 570 substituted “twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)” for “two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)” in (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A); substituted “five thousand dollars ($5,000)” for “five hundred dollars ($500)” in (c)(2)(A); inserted present (c)(3) and redesignated former (c)(3) as (c)(4); and rewrote (c)(4).
The 2011 amendment by No. 1120 inserted the (c)(4)(A) designation and (c)(4)(B).
Research References
ALR.
What Is “Intent to Deprive” Sufficient to Establish Liability for Civil, or Statutory, Theft, 35 A.L.R.7th Art. 1 (2018).
Case Notes
Applicability.
Former section providing penalty for obtaining food or lodging with intent to defraud was intended to apply only to persons who obtained food or lodging for themselves and not to persons who agreed to pay for the accommodation of other persons. Garrett v. State, 169 Ark. 527, 275 S.W. 902 (1925) (decision under prior law).
Directed Verdict.
Defendant was charged with theft of services for his failure to pay the bail-bond company $7,570. The circuit court granted him a directed verdict because the definition of “services” under this section did not include the services provided by bail-bonding companies; and a future promise to pay for services could not establish the requisite fraudulent intent. State v. Williams, 2013 Ark. 164 (2013).
Instructions.
Instruction that if the jury found that the defendant had absconded without offering to pay, it was not conclusive as to the defendant's intent to defraud but could be considered along with all the other facts and circumstances in the case, did not constitute an improper inference of an intent to defraud. Barnes v. State, 261 Ark. 360, 548 S.W.2d 141 (1977) (decision under prior law).
Refusal to give requested instruction on the lesser included offense held error. Bongfeldt v. State, 6 Ark. App. 102, 639 S.W.2d 70 (1982).
Cited: Powell v. State, 33 Ark. App. 1, 799 S.W.2d 566 (1990).