Sec. 4. (a) The price tag or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale constitutes prima facie evidence of the value and ownership of the property.

(b) Evidence that a person:

(1) altered, substituted, or transferred a universal product code (UPC) or another product identification code, label, price tag, or price marking on property displayed or offered for sale or hire; or

(2) transferred property displayed or offered for sale or hire from the package, bag, or container in or on which the property was displayed or offered to another package, bag, or container;

constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to deprive the owner of the property of a part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.

(c) Evidence that a person:

(1) concealed property displayed or offered for sale or hire; and

(2) removed the property from any place within the business premises at which it was displayed or offered to a point beyond that at which payment should be made;

constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to deprive the owner of the property of a part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.

(d) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, evidence of failure to perform as promised, by itself, does not constitute evidence that the promisor knew that the promise would not be performed.

(e) Except as provided in section 5(b) of this chapter, a person who has insufficient funds in or no account with a drawee credit institution and who makes, draws, or utters a check, draft, or order for payment on the credit institution may be inferred:

(1) to have known that the credit institution would refuse payment upon presentment in the usual course of business; and

(2) to have intended to deprive the owner of any property acquired by making, drawing, or uttering the check, draft, or order for payment of a part of the value of that property.

(f) Evidence that a person, after renting or leasing any property under a written agreement providing for the return of the property to a particular place at a particular time, failed to return the property to the place within seventy-two (72) hours after the agreed time constitutes prima facie evidence that he exerted unauthorized control over the property.

(g) A judge may find that a photograph of property over which a person is alleged to have exerted unauthorized control or to have otherwise obtained unlawfully is competent evidence, if the photograph:

(1) will serve the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the property; and

(2) is otherwise admissible into evidence under all other rules of law governing the admissibility of photographs into evidence.

The fact that it is impractical to introduce into evidence the actual property for any reason, including its size, weight, or unavailability, need not be established for a judge to find a photograph of that property to be competent evidence. If a photograph is found to be competent evidence under this subsection, it is admissible into evidence in place of the property and to the same extent as the property itself.

(h) A law enforcement agency that is holding as evidence property over which a person is alleged to have exerted unauthorized control or to have otherwise obtained unlawfully, may return that property to its owner if:

(1) the property has been photographed in a manner that will serve the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the property, and if these photographs are filed with or retained by the law enforcement agency in place of the property;

(2) receipt for the property is obtained from the owner upon delivery by the law enforcement agency;

(3) the prosecuting attorney who is prosecuting a case that involves the property has not requested the law enforcement agency to decline requests for return of the property to its owner; and

(4) the property may be lawfully possessed by the owner.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.47; Acts 1980, P.L.200, SEC.2; P.L.322-1985, SEC.1; P.L.84-2001, SEC.1.