§708-830.5 Theft in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of theft in the first degree if the person commits theft of:
(a) Property or services, the value of which exceeds $20,000;
(b) A firearm;
(c) Dynamite or other explosive;
(d) Property or services during an emergency period proclaimed by the governor or mayor pursuant to chapter 127A, within the area covered by the emergency or disaster under chapter 127A, the value of which exceeds $300;
(e) Property from the person of another who is sixty years of age or older and the age of the property owner is known or reasonably should be known to the person who commits theft;
(f) Property or services, the value of which exceeds $750, from a person who is sixty years of age or older and the age of the property owner is known or reasonably should be known to the person who commits theft; or
(g) A motor vehicle or motorcycle as defined in section 291C-1.
(2) Theft in the first degree is a class B felony. [L 1986, c 314, §63; am L 1992, c 289, §1; am L 1993, c 14, §1; am L 2006, c 116, §6; am L 2014, c 111, §20; am L 2021, c 147, §4; am L 2022, c 54, §2]
Where defendant returned new vehicle after 72 hour possession and prosecution was unable to prove any economic loss to car dealership, no intent to deprive dealership of significant portion of vehicle's economic value, use, or benefit. 86 H. 207, 948 P.2d 1048 (1997).
Where appeals court correctly held that defendant's theft offense under §708-830(1) and subsection (1)(a) required proof of a value element which defendant's federal conspiracy offense did not, and was designed to prevent a substantially different harm--the deprivation of property rights versus the threat posed by agreements to commit criminal conduct, defendant's prosecution in state court was not barred under §701-112 and the circuit court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss in this respect. 126 H. 205, 269 P.3d 740 (2011).
Based on petitioner's performance of petitioner's part of the contract between homeowner and petitioner and the failure of the respondent State to produce evidence of the value of the work completed by petitioner, the State failed to establish that petitioner deprived homeowner of property exceeding $20,000 in value, the threshold for first degree theft. 129 H. 414, 301 P.3d 1255 (2013).