Hawaii Shoplifting Law Excerpts

§708-830 Theft

A person commits theft if the person does any of the following:

(1) Obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another with intent to deprive the other of the property.

(2) Property obtained or control exerted through deception. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another by deception with intent to deprive the other of the property.

(3) Appropriation of property. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another that the person knows to have been lost or mislaid or to have been delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property, the identity of the recipient, or other facts, and, with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, the person fails to take reasonable measures to discover and notify the owner.

(4) Obtaining services by deception. A person intentionally obtains services, known by the person to be available only for compensation, by deception, false token, or other means to avoid payment for the services. When compensation for services is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of them, absconding without payment or offer to pay is prima facie evidence that the services were obtained by deception.

(5) Diversion of services. Having control over the disposition of services of another to which a person is not entitled, the person intentionally diverts those services to the person’s own benefit or to the benefit of a person not entitled thereto.

(6) Failure to make required disposition of funds.

(a) A person intentionally obtains property from anyone upon an agreement, or subject to a known legal obligation, to make specified payment or other disposition, whether from the property or its proceeds or from the person’s own property reserved in equivalent amount, and deals with the property as the person’s own and fails to make the required payment or disposition. It does not matter that it is impossible to identify particular property as belonging to the victim at the time of the defendant’s failure to make the required payment or disposition. A person’s status as an officer or employee of the government or a financial institution is prima facie evidence that the person knows the person’s legal obligations with respect to making payments and other dispositions. If the officer or employee fails to pay or account upon lawful demand, or if an audit reveals a falsification of accounts, it shall be prima facie evidence that the officer or employee has intentionally dealt with the property as the officer’s or employee’s own.

(b) A person obtains personal services from an employee upon agreement or subject to a known legal obligation to make a payment or other disposition of funds to a third person on account of the employment, and the person intentionally fails to make the payment or disposition at the proper time.

(7) Receiving stolen property. A person intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another, knowing that it has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner of the property. It is prima facie evidence that a person knows the property to have been stolen if, being a dealer in property of the sort received, the person acquires the property for a consideration that the person knows is far below its reasonable value.

(8) Shoplifting.

(a) A person conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.

(b) A person alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.

(c) A person transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another, with intent to defraud.

The unaltered price or name tag or other marking on goods or merchandise, duly identified photographs or photocopies thereof, or printed register receipts, shall be prima facie evidence of value and ownership of such goods or merchandise. Photographs of the goods or merchandise involved, duly identified in writing by the arresting police officer as accurately representing such goods or merchandise, shall be deemed competent evidence of the goods or merchandise involved and shall be admissible in any proceedings, hearings, and trials for shoplifting, to the same extent as the goods or merchandise themselves. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1 and c 102, §2; am L 1974, c 39, §1; am L 1979, c 106, §5; gen ch 1993; am L 2001, c 87, §1]

§708-833.5 Shoplifting

A person convicted of committing the offense of shoplifting as defined in section 708-830 shall be sentenced as follows:

(1) In cases involving property the value or aggregate value of which exceeds $300: as a class C felony, provided that the minimum fine shall be four times the value or aggregate value involved;

(2) In cases involving property the value or aggregate value of which exceeds $100: as a misdemeanor, provided that the minimum fine shall be three times the value or aggregate value involved;

(3) In cases involving property the value or aggregate value of which is $100 or less: as a petty misdemeanor, provided that the minimum fine shall be twice the value or aggregate value involved;

(4) If a person has previously been convicted of committing the offense of shoplifting as defined in section 708-830, the minimum fine shall be doubled that specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively, as set forth above; provided in the event the convicted person defaults in payment of any fine, and the default was not contumacious, the court may sentence the person to community services as authorized by section 706-605(1)(e). [L 1979, c 202, §2; am L 1982, c 233, §1; am L 1986, c 314, §67]

§663-2 Defense of lawful detention

In any action for false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character, assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights, brought by any person by reason of having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a retail mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation or questioning as to the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense to the action that the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a police officer or by the owner of the retail mercantile establishment, the owner’s authorized employee, or agent, and that such police officer, owner, employee, or agent had reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit larceny of merchandise on the premises.

As used in this section, “reasonable grounds” includes, but is not limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise of the retail mercantile establishment, and a “reasonable time” means the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise.

For the purpose of this section, the term “retail mercantile establishment” means a place where goods, wares, or merchandise are offered to the public for sale. This section applies to legal actions resulting from detentions occurring after May 21, 1967. [L 1967, c 107, §1; HRS §663-2; am L 1972, c 144, §2(b); gen ch 1985]

Click for additional information.