Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-835 (2026)

  Proof of theft offense

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §708-835  Proof of theft offense.  A charge of an offense of theft in any degree may be proved by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be theft under section 708-830, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment, information, or other charge, subject only to the power of the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a continuance or other appropriate relief where the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by lack of fair notice or by surprise. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]

 

COMMENTARY ON §708-835

 

  As outlined in the commentary on §708-830, one of the principal reasons for the consolidation of various related common-law and statutory offenses under the single theft statute is to eliminate pointless procedural obstacles in prosecution.  The possibility of quashing a theft indictment because of variance would substantially pervert the virtue of simplicity which such consolidation seeks to achieve.  Subject only to the court's power to ensure a fair trial (e.g., to ensure that the accused has adequate time and information to prepare a defense), any charge of theft may be proved by demonstration, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused's actions came within the definition of one of the subsections of §708-830.[1]

 

Case Notes

 

   The law does not permit the conviction of a defendant of two counts of theft for, first, having obtained or taken an item of property and, second, for having disposed of or sold the same item of property; the taking and/or selling of one item of property is only one theft.  93 H. 22 (App.), 995 P.2d 323 (2000).

 

__________

§708-835 Commentary:

 

1.  See generally, M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 1, Appendix A at 101-109 (1953).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2017 · leading case: Tomomitsu v. State, 995 P.2d 323 (Haw. App. 2000).
Tomomitsu v. State, 995 P.2d 323 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Thus, HRS § 708-835 (1993) states as follows: Proof of theft offense.”
State v. Klattenhoff, 801 P.2d 548 (Haw. 1990). · cites it 2× “The evidence presented at trial, including the personal bank records of appellant, the accounting records of KPRA and KPPC together with the parties’ stipulations are more than sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt.”
Amended July 18, 2017 State of Iowa v. Betty Ann Nall (Iowa 2017). “2); Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 708-835 (West, Westlaw current though 2016 2d Spec.”
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.