§708-801 Valuation of property or services.
Whenever the value of property or services is determinative of the class or
grade of an offense, or otherwise relevant to a prosecution, the following
shall apply:
(1) Except as otherwise specified in this section,
value means the market value of the property or services at the time and place
of the offense, or the replacement cost if the market value of the property or
services cannot be determined.
(2) Whether or not they have been issued or
delivered, certain written instruments, not including those having a readily
ascertained market value, shall be evaluated as follows:
(a) The value of an instrument constituting
an evidence of debt, such as a check, traveler's check, draft, or promissory
note, shall be deemed the amount due or collectible thereon or thereby, that
figure ordinarily being the face amount of the indebtedness less any portion
thereof that has been satisfied;
(b) The value of any other instrument that
creates, releases, discharges, or otherwise affects any valuable legal right,
privilege, or obligation shall be deemed the greatest amount of economic loss
that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss
of the instrument.
(3) When property or services have value but that
value cannot be ascertained pursuant to the standards set forth above, the
value shall be deemed to be an amount not exceeding $100.
(4) When acting intentionally or knowingly with
respect to the value of property or services is required to establish an
element of an offense, the value of property or services shall be prima facie
evidence that the defendant believed or knew the property or services to be of
that value. When acting recklessly with respect to the value of property or
services is sufficient to establish an element of an offense, the value of the
property or services shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant acted in
reckless disregard of the value.
(5) When acting intentionally or knowingly with
respect to the value of property or services is required to establish an
element of an offense, it is a defense, which reduces the class or grade of the
offense to a class or grade of offense consistent with the defendant's state of
mind, that the defendant believed the valuation of the property or services to
be less. When acting recklessly with respect to the value of property or
services is required to establish an element of an offense, it is a defense
that the defendant did not recklessly disregard a risk that the property was of
the specified value.
(6) Amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to
one scheme or course of conduct, whether the property taken be of one person or
several persons, may be aggregated in determining the class or grade of the
offense. Amounts involved in offenses of criminal property damage committed
pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the property damaged be of
one person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the class or
grade of the offense. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1987, c 175, §1; am L 1998,
c 49, §1; am L 2006, c 230, §34]
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.
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, amended this section by making
technical nonsubstantive amendments.
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 (1999).
Valuation of property as applied to violation of
§708-831(1)(b). 1 H. App. 644, 623 P.2d 898 (1981).
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 (1998).
Under §702-206, the term "intentional", as applied
to the value-attendant-circumstance element of the insurance fraud offense
under §431:10C-307.7, means "believes"; also, paragraph (4) indicates
that either a defendant's "belief" or "knowledge" is
sufficient to establish an intentional or knowing state of mind as to the value
element; thus, pursuant to §702-204, as a "reckless" state of mind
was applicable to the value element of the insurance fraud offense, defendant
was not exposed to a conviction based on a state of mind lower than what was
required. 117 H. 26 (App.), 175 P.3d 136 (2007).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
State v. Mitchell, 965 P.2d 149 (Haw. App. 1998).
State v. Mitchell, 965 P.2d 149 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 35× “HRS § 708-801 (⅛) and HRE Rule 306. In Hawai'i, however, there is a statutory presumption that “[w]hen acting intentionally or knowingly with respect to the value of property or services is required to establish an element of an offense, the value of property or services shall…”
State v. Cabrera, 978 P.2d 797 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 12× “HRS § 708-801 provides in relevant part: Valuation of property.”
State v. Shaw., 497 P.3d 71 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 9× “Shaw argued that if HRS § 708-801(6) allows aggregation of theft amounts from a single victim or multiple victims, the State failed to adduce evidence that Shaw acted pursuant to a single scheme or course of conduct required for aggregation.”
State v. Yokota., 426 P.3d 424 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 6× “" Specifically, the State argued that the plain language of HRS § 708-801(6) allowed the State "to aggregate amounts obtained during individual instances of obtaining money from another by deception, even if the victim [was] not the same person in each individual instance.”
State v. Carroll., 456 P.3d 502 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 708-801 (2014). 4 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** exceeding $1,500 to the King Kamehameha I statue, also belonging to the KSAA;4 and (3) Count 3, theft in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 708-830(1) and HRS § 708-832(1)(a)…”
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Had Mitsuda been sentenced for theft in the fourth degree (no value was established for the manicure set, see HRS § 708-801(3)) and terroristic threatening in the first degree, even if the sentences were imposed consecutively, the maximum length of his imprisonment would be five…”
State v. Whitaker, 175 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “) The Commentary on HRS § 708-801 (1993) states that “[s]ection 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…”
State v. Shinyama, 69 P.3d 517 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 2× “…we opined, based on our reading of “HRS §§ 708-830(8)(a) and 708-831(1)(b) in pari materia, see HRS § 1-16, ... with HRS §§ 708-801(4) and (5) (1993 & Supp.1998), against the backdrop of HRS §§ 702-204, 702-205, and 702-206 (1993),” that valuation for purposes of second…”
State v. Pardee, 948 P.2d 586 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 13× “Relying on the foregoing Commentary, Defendant contends that the standard to be applied in determining whether he damaged property “in an amount exceeding $100” is set forth in HRS § 708-801 (1993), which reads, in pertinent part: Valuation of property.”
State v. Shaw, 462 P.3d 1109 (Haw. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “ufficiency of the Indictment Shaw argues that, where the Computer Fraud 3 and Credit Card Fraud charges were based on an aggregation of multiple transactions pursuant to HRS § 708-801(6),6 the State was required to allege in the Indictment that Shaw intentionally 6 HRS §…”
State v. Mayo, 623 P.2d 898 (Haw. App. 1981).
“Taylor that the cost of return passage was $459.00, based upon the price paid for the tickets, does not meet the statutory requirement that “value” means the market value of the property or services at the time and place of the offense.”
State v. Carroll, 429 P.3d 1229 (Haw. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “HRS § 708-801(1) provides: § 708-801 Valuation of property or services.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-801(1) — 4 cases
State v. Carroll., 456 P.3d 502 (Haw. 2020).
“HRS § 708-801 (2014). 4 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** exceeding $1,500 to the King Kamehameha I statue, also belonging to the KSAA;4 and (3) Count 3, theft in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 708-830(1) and HRS § 708-832(1)(a)…”
State v. Mitchell, 965 P.2d 149 (Haw. App. 1998).
“HRS § 708-801 (⅛) and HRE Rule 306. In Hawai'i, however, there is a statutory presumption that “[w]hen acting intentionally or knowingly with respect to the value of property or services is required to establish an element of an offense, the value of property or services shall…”
State v. Mayo, 623 P.2d 898 (Haw. App. 1981).
“Taylor that the cost of return passage was $459.00, based upon the price paid for the tickets, does not meet the statutory requirement that “value” means the market value of the property or services at the time and place of the offense.”
State v. Carroll, 429 P.3d 1229 (Haw. App. 2018).
“HRS § 708-801(1) provides: § 708-801 Valuation of property or services.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-801(3) — 1 case
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997).
“Had Mitsuda been sentenced for theft in the fourth degree (no value was established for the manicure set, see HRS § 708-801(3)) and terroristic threatening in the first degree, even if the sentences were imposed consecutively, the maximum length of his imprisonment would be five…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-801(4) — 6 cases
State v. Mitchell, 965 P.2d 149 (Haw. App. 1998).
“HRS § 708-801 (⅛) and HRE Rule 306. In Hawai'i, however, there is a statutory presumption that “[w]hen acting intentionally or knowingly with respect to the value of property or services is required to establish an element of an offense, the value of property or services shall…”
State v. Cabrera, 978 P.2d 797 (Haw. 1999).
“HRS § 708-801 provides in relevant part: Valuation of property.”
State v. Shinyama, 69 P.3d 517 (Haw. 2003).
“…we opined, based on our reading of “HRS §§ 708-830(8)(a) and 708-831(1)(b) in pari materia, see HRS § 1-16, ... with HRS §§ 708-801(4) and (5) (1993 & Supp.1998), against the backdrop of HRS §§ 702-204, 702-205, and 702-206 (1993),” that valuation for purposes of second…”
State v. Whitaker, 175 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2007).
“) The Commentary on HRS § 708-801 (1993) states that “[s]ection 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…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-801(5) — 1 case
State v. Cabrera, 978 P.2d 797 (Haw. 1999).
“HRS § 708-801 provides in relevant part: Valuation of property.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-801(6) — 4 cases
State v. Shaw., 497 P.3d 71 (Haw. 2021).
“Shaw argued that if HRS § 708-801(6) allows aggregation of theft amounts from a single victim or multiple victims, the State failed to adduce evidence that Shaw acted pursuant to a single scheme or course of conduct required for aggregation.”
State v. Yokota., 426 P.3d 424 (Haw. 2018).
“" Specifically, the State argued that the plain language of HRS § 708-801(6) allowed the State "to aggregate amounts obtained during individual instances of obtaining money from another by deception, even if the victim [was] not the same person in each individual instance.”
State v. Shaw, 462 P.3d 1109 (Haw. App. 2020).
“ufficiency of the Indictment Shaw argues that, where the Computer Fraud 3 and Credit Card Fraud charges were based on an aggregation of multiple transactions pursuant to HRS § 708-801(6),6 the State was required to allege in the Indictment that Shaw intentionally 6 HRS §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.