Opinion ID: 1253024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: There Was Substantial Evidence To Support The Jury's Verdict Of Theft In The First Degree.

Text: William contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish the second, third, and last material element [as provided in the circuit court's jury instructions] to the offense of [t]heft in the [f]irst [d]egree. Inasmuch as there was credible evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a [person] of reasonable caution to support the jury's verdict in the present matter, see Mattiello, supra section II.B, we do not agree. 1. There was substantial evidence to support a finding that William obtained control over the property of the County of Kaua`i by deception and with intent to do so. William contends that the prosecution failed to present evidence adequate to support a finding that he obtained property belonging to the County of Kaua`i by deception or that he possessed the requisite intent to do so. This court has stated, however, that, [g]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, [w]e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient .... Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances. State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 536-37 (1982) (citations omitted); see also State v. Simpson, 64 Haw. 363, 373 n. 7, 641 P.2d 320, 326 n. 7 (1982). State v. Mitsuda, 86 Hawai`i 37, 44, 947 P.2d 349, 356 (1997) (quoting State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992) (footnote omitted)) (brackets and ellipsis points in original). In the present matter, Brun testified that William signed a tenant responsibilities form for Julio, which indicated that Julio would be the sole tenant of the apartment. Miyao testified that William accompanied Julio when Julio's qualification for Section 8 housing assistance was reassessed. Several witnesses testified that, between 1995 and 1997, they observed William regularly in or around the apartment. The jury could reasonably have concluded from the foregoing testimony (1) that William knew that only Julio was permitted to live in the apartment and (2) that, notwithstanding, William actually lived in the apartment. Accordingly, the jury could have inferred from this set of circumstances that William both deceived the County of Kaua`i and intended to do so. That being the case, there was substantial evidence to support a verdict of theft in the first degree. 2. There was substantial evidence to support a finding that the value of the property at issue exceeded $20,000.00. William contends that the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence that the property received from the County of Kaua[`]i by deception exceeded $20,000[.00]. William appears to base this argument on the circuit court's error in misreading the jury instruction regarding theft in the first degree. See supra section III.B. William claims that, inasmuch as the jury was orally instructed only regarding theft in the first degree allegedly committed on February 16, 1995, on which date the County of Kaua`i paid Julio's rent of $283.00, there could not have been substantial evidence to sustain a verdict of theft in the first degree. We do not agree. As noted above, substantial evidence is credible evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a [person] of reasonable caution to support the jury's verdict. See Mattiello, supra section II.B. Regardless of how the jury was orally instructed in the present matter, and bearing in mind that the written instruction correctly characterized the time frame at issue, there was credible evidence to demonstrate that the value of the property taken by William exceeded $20,000.00. Brun testified that, between February 1995 and September 1997, the Housing Agency paid $20,607.00 in rent for the apartment. It follows that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of theft in the first degree.