Similarly, the jury in Hettinger's case was instructed that intent to deprive another of property was an element of third- degree theft. Hettinger was fully able to litigate his theory at trial. Now, we've never denied that Farel Hettinger carried the snowboards out of the Nugget Mall. . . . The issue in this case is intent. And that doesn't mean did he intend to walk out of the Nugget Mall with snowboards. . . .
Intent means the intent to deprive another of property, to appropriate property of another.
And what that means is that if a person has a sincere but mistaken belief that the property is discarded or abandoned, they don't have that intent. And the state has to prove that that is not the case. In other words, the state has to prove to you that Mr. Hettinger did not have a belief, even a mistaken belief, that these items were discarded or abandoned. The defendant says yes, I took the these snowboards. . . . But I thought they were junk.