Opinion ID: 871078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's arguments

Text: The State did not explicitly address Taylor's sufficiency of the evidence argument, but instead contended that it need not, under Nases, name the artifacts' actual owner in the charging document[] and that the indictment contain[ed] the necessary charging information: that [Taylor] `did obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property of another.' The State further argued that it was important that Taylor could not claim ownership in the stolen property[ and, f]or this reason, it makes no difference whether the artifacts are owned by the repatriating museums, the Native Hawaiian groups that reburied the artifacts, or the State itself. Moreover, the State argued that it has a statutory interest pursuant to HRS chapter 6E to all historic property on State land and a common law interest in property buried on its land. Regarding Taylor's HRS § 701-112 claim, the State argued that Taylor was federally convicted, and then prosecuted by the State, for entirely different criminal conduct[,] (emphasis in original) and that the charged offenses required proof of different elements[.] The theft indictment focused on Taylor obtaining control over another's property, with the intent to deprive[,] while the federal conviction involved conspiracy to illegally traffic Native Hawaiian cultural items obtained in violation of NAGPRA. (Emphasis omitted). The State also argued that the statutes defining the state and federal offenses were intended to prevent `substantially different harm[s] or evil[s].' (Brackets in original).