N.C.P.I.—Crim. 219B.80A

NOTE WELL: If the defendant’s actions did not result in

the arrest, detention, or conviction of another person,

use N.C.P.I.-Crim. 219B.80.

The defendant has been charged with identity theft resulting in

another person's [arrest] [detention] [conviction of a criminal offense].

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must

prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, that the defendant [obtained] [possessed] [used] personal

identifying information1 of another person. (Name type of identifying

information, e.g., social security number) would be personal identifying

information.

Second, that the defendant acted knowingly and with the intent2 to

fraudulently represent that the defendant was that other person for the

purpose of [making financial or credit transactions in the other person's

name] [obtaining anything of value, benefit, or advantage] [avoiding

legal consequences].

NOTE WELL: Until December of 2002, lack of consent

of the victim was an element of the offense.

And Third, that as a proximate result of the defendant's action,

that other person was [arrested] [detained] [convicted of a criminal

offense].

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date the defendant [obtained] [possessed] [used]

personal identifying information of another person, that the defendant did

so knowingly, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the defendant

was that other person for the purpose of [making financial or credit

transactions in that other person's name] [obtaining anything of value,

benefit, or advantage] [avoiding legal consequences], and that as a

proximate result of the defendant's action that other person was

[arrested] [detained] [convicted of a criminal offense], it would be your

duty to return a verdict of guilty of identity theft resulting in another

person's [arrest] [detention] [conviction of a criminal offense]. If you do

not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things,

you will consider whether the defendant is guilty of identity theft.

Identity theft differs from identity theft resulting in another person's

[arrest] [detention] [conviction of a criminal offense] in that the state is

not required to prove that as a proximate result of the defendant's action

another person was [arrested] [detained] [convicted of a criminal

offense].

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date the defendant [obtained] [possessed] [used]

personal identifying information of another person, that the defendant did

so knowingly, and with the intent to fraudulently represent that the

defendant was that other person for the purpose of [making financial or

credit transactions in that other person's name] [obtaining anything of

value, benefit, or advantage] [avoiding legal consequences], it would be

your duty to return a verdict of guilty of identity theft. If you do not so

find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it

would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.