1. It is a defense to a prosecution under this chapter that: a. The actor reasonably believed that the actor had a claim to the property or services involved which the actor was entitled to assert in the manner which forms the basis for the charge against the actor; or b. The victim is the actor's spouse, but only when the property involved constitutes household or personal effects or other property normally accessible to both spouses and the parties involved are living together. The term "spouse", as used in this section, includes persons living together as husband and wife. 2. It does not constitute a defense to a prosecution for conduct constituting an offense in violation of this chapter that: a. Stratagem or deception, including the use of an undercover operative or law enforcement officer, was employed; b. A facility or an opportunity to engage in such conduct, including offering for sale property not stolen as if it were stolen, was provided; or c. Mere solicitation that would not induce an ordinary law -abiding person to engage in such conduct was made by a law enforcement officer to gain evidence against a person predisposed to engage in such conduct. 3. a. It is a prima facie case of theft under this chapter if it is shown that a public servant or an officer, director, agent, employee of, or a person connected in any capacity with a financial institution has failed to pay or account upon lawful demand for money or property entrusted to the person as part of that person's official duties or if an audit reveals a shortage or falsification of the person's accounts. b. It is a prima facie case of theft under this chapter if it is shown that a person, having successfully bid on and obtained an item at an auction, removed the item from the auction premises without paying or making provisions to pay for the item. c. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below its fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen. d. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business, or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen. 4. The testimony of an accomplice, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient for a conviction for conduct constituting an offense in violation of sections 12.1 -23-08.1 through 12.1-23-08.3 when: a. Stratagem or deception, including the use of an undercover operative or law enforcement officer, was employed; b. A facility or an opportunity to engage in such conduct including offering for sale property not stolen as if it were stolen, was provided; or c. Mere solicitation that would not induce an ordinary law -abiding person to engage in such conduct was made by a law enforcement officer to gain evidence against a person predisposed to engage in such conduct.
‹ Prev All North Dakota sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.