## Facts

- Eryck A. Bautista negotiated to buy a new Toyota 4-Runner from Maui Toyota and paid with a check for $29,865.83.
- Maui Toyota released the vehicle without verifying available funds.
- The check was drawn on a bank account closed more than five months earlier, and a police officer testified Bautista admitted he knew the account was closed when he wrote the check.
- Bautista returned to the dealership three days later for installation work; that day, Maui Toyota learned the check was dishonored and demanded return of the vehicle.
- Bautista returned the 4-Runner the same day; it had 592 additional miles and could no longer be sold as “new.”
- Bautista provided accurate identifying information and remained in contact, claiming he was trying to obtain funds.
- Evidence from two other dealerships showed similar episodes: Bautista obtained vehicles with checks on closed accounts and returned the vehicles after being told the checks would not clear.
- Maui Toyota’s finance manager could not clearly quantify the dealership’s economic loss attributable to Bautista’s temporary possession due to complexities in the transaction and resale.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bautista acted with intent to “deprive” Maui Toyota of property exceeding $20,000, as required for first-degree theft.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to establish the required intent to “deprive” for first-degree theft.
- The court reasoned that Bautista’s conduct, including prompt return of the vehicle upon demand and lack of concealment, supported an inference of temporary use rather than intent to permanently or substantially deprive.
- The court also noted the absence of clear proof that Bautista intended to deprive Maui Toyota of the vehicle’s full economic value or to cause loss meeting the statutory value threshold.

## Legal Principles

- Theft requires proof that the defendant acted with intent to “deprive” the owner of property, meaning an intent to permanently or substantially withhold the property or its economic value, not merely to obtain temporary use.
- Evidence of deception in acquiring possession (including knowingly writing a bad check) does not by itself establish the specific intent to “deprive” required for theft if the circumstances show only temporary possession and prompt return.
- Where the statutory scheme separately addresses temporary interferences with motor vehicles, charging theft requires proof of the theft-specific mens rea rather than conduct consistent with temporary unauthorized use.
- For value-graded theft, the State must prove intent to deprive the owner of value at or above the charged threshold; an unquantified or indeterminate diminution in value from brief use may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Bautista’s first-degree theft conviction because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to permanently or substantially deprive the dealership of the vehicle or its economic value, as opposed to engaging in a short-term, dishonest use that was promptly undone upon demand.


State v. Bautista, 86 Haw. 207, 948 P.2d 1048 (Haw. 1997)