Wyatt Morse agreed to convert Janice Heffron’s second-floor room into a small bathroom. He said his plumbing work would be above and beyond code and that he could complete the project in five weeks for $5,000. After ten weeks, the project was not finished. Morse quit without explanation. He had been paid in excess of $6,000. Afterwards, Janice learned that some of the work he did was faulty. ***

Background
     * * *

   Wyatt Morse was Janice’s neighbor and * * * proposed to convert the second-floor bedroom into a bathroom in five weeks for $5,000. According to Janice, Morse ‘‘stalked’’ her about doing the remodeling project, repeatedly stating he could do it ‘‘easy, quick, cheap.’’ Nonetheless, Janice told her mother, Maxine Heffron, who would finance the project, about Morse’s offer. Maxine and Janice then went to Morse’s home, where he showed them the bathroom he had restored. Janice and Maxine were impressed. Morse also told them that he had plumbing experience, that his work would be above and beyond code, and that the local inspector did not inspect his work because he was so good.

   In December 2005, Janice, Maxine, and Morse made an oral agreement for him to complete the project in five weeks for $5,000, with payments in cash installments. Maxine wanted to pay using personal checks to assure a paper trail, but Morse convinced her to pay him with cash. According to Janice, he wanted to be paid in cash to avoid the IRS [Internal Revenue Service]. They agreed that Morse would convert the room into a bathroom, install an antique claw-foot tub (one that he would provide personally), put wainscoting on the walls, install an old tin ceiling like the one in his bathroom, and install crown molding.

   Morse began work in January 2006. His efforts continued until the second week of March. He repaired the kitchen ceiling and wall. He installed plumbing fixtures in the area he repaired. He removed the old water heater and installed a new one. He ran a freeze-proof spigot outside the house. He put in a bathroom vent with an antique vent cover. He custom built a bathroom cabinet at no extra cost to the Heffrons. He mounted wainscoting and crafted a surrounding shelf with rope lighting. He put in a faux tin ceiling, with crown molding and trim. He installed water pipes and a new drain stack.

   The project took longer and cost more than originally agreed. Morse ran into difficulties when he attempted to install a tankless water heater that Maxine was aware took approximately two weeks effort. He was never able to install the tankless heater, and ended up installing a traditional tanked water heater. Morse also experienced problems with some of the pipes he installed. Janice told him that they were leaking. He repaired them and blamed the leaks on bad batches of solder.

   Maxine paid Morse somewhere between $6,000 and $6,500 cash. Her last payment was on February 28, 2006. Some of the cash, she said, was for ‘‘off contract’’ materials that were not part of the contract price. In March 2006, Morse fell and aggravated his already bad back. Before Janice and Maxine hired him, Morse had told them that he had a back condition. After his fall in March, he came to the job site less and less. Then, after the second week in March he stopped coming entirely. The Heffrons tried contacting him through phone calls, personal visits, and certified mail. He never responded.

   After Morse abandoned the project, Janice contacted a licensed plumber, who examined Morse’s work and gave Janice an estimate on the cost of completing the project. The plumber pointed out several deficiencies in Morse’s work. In particular, Morse incorrectly installed the water heater, the pipes for the sink, lavatory, and bathtub. He used S-traps, illegal in South Dakota, and improperly vented the floor drains. Because he installed the water heater incorrectly, carbon monoxide was leaking into Janice’s home. In sum, Morse’s work on the bathroom, in the opinion of the licensed plumber, had no value to the home.

   On October 12, 2006, Morse was indicted for grand theft by deception in violation of SDCL [South Dakota Criminal Law] 22-30A-3(1) and SDCL 22-30A- 3(3), or in the alternative, grand theft by obtaining property without paying. The alternative count was later dismissed. A Lawrence County jury returned a guilty verdict. Morse admitted to a Part II Information and was sentenced to five years in prison. He appeals asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.

* * *

   Morse argues that the State failed to prove he had the requisite intent to defraud the Heffrons. He does not dispute that the work he did on Janice’s home was faulty and resulted in the Heffrons having to pay considerably more in repairs. Nonetheless, he claims that his faulty work created a classic breach of contract claim, because when he entered into the agreement to remodel the bathroom, he believed he was capable of doing quality work and fully intended on completing the project. The State, on the other hand, argues that Morse ‘‘created and reinforced the false impression in the minds of Jan and Maxine Heffron that he was licensed to, and capable of, installing a second floor bathroom.’’ More particularly, the State contends that Morse ‘‘deceived’’ the Heffrons on his ability to do the work, ‘‘misled’’ them with his statements that his work would be above code, and ‘‘took actions to further reinforce the false impression that he was able to properly install the bathroom.’’

   Theft by deception is a specific intent crime. [Citation.] Intent to defraud ‘‘‘means to act willfully and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat, ordinarily for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to one’s self.’’’ [Citation.] Therefore, Morse must have had the ‘‘purpose to deceive.’’ [Citation.] ‘‘‘It is only where [actors do] not believe what [they] purposely caused [their victims] to believe, and where this can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that [these actors] can be convicted of theft.’’’ [Citation.]

* * *

   There are a number of cases involving construction contracts where courts have found the evidence sufficient to prove deceptive theft, or related criminal conduct. In those cases, however, there was either circumstantial or direct evidence to establish the requisite intent. For example, in [citation], an appeals court held that the jury could infer intent when at the time Cash obtained the money he had no intention to complete the work because he took the money and never performed. In State v. Rivers, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for theft by deception because he had a pattern of deceptive conduct. [Citation.] Rivers was a self-employed contractor, who obtained multiple remodeling jobs, took money as a down payment, persuaded his customers to give him more money, and then never completed the work. * * *

   Here, Morse was convicted of theft by deception, defined in SDCL 22-30A-3. It states in part:

[a]ny person who obtains property of another by deception is guilty of theft. A person deceives if, with intent to defraud, that person:
   (1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind. However, as to a person’s intention to perform a promise, deception may not be inferred from the fact alone that that person did not subsequently perform the promise;…
  (3) Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom the deceiver stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; …

   The term, deceive, does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive reasonable persons.

   Based on our review of the record, in a light most favorable to the verdict, Morse: (1) failed to complete the project in five weeks for $5,000 as promised; (2) performed work that was not ‘‘above and beyond code’’ as promised; (3) lied about obtaining a building permit; (4) lied about the reasons he could not get the tankless water heater installed and why the pipes were leaking; (5) returned the water heater and did not give the $186 refund to Maxine; (6) never provided Janice or Maxine receipts for materials purchased; (7) quit working on the project prematurely and without explanation; and (8) never responded to the Heffrons’ attempts to contact him.

   These facts do not prove the elements of theft by deception. There is no evidence that Morse had a purpose to deceive or intended to defraud the Heffrons when he agreed to remodel Janice’s bathroom. Although his work was not above and beyond code, the State never argued that Morse knew he would do faulty work. Janice and Maxine both testified that Morse took them up to his house and showed him the remodeling that he did to his own bathroom. They both said they were impressed. It cannot be inferred that Morse intended to defraud the Heffrons because his work product was not up to code.

   Moreover, the State never argued or presented evidence that Morse took Maxine’s money with the intention of never performing under their agreement. * * * The parties made their agreement in December 2005, and no one disputes that Morse worked regularly on the project from January 2006 until the second week of March. While Morse failed to complete the project in five weeks for $5,000 as promised, the State never claimed that he knew it would take longer and charge more, and tricked the Heffrons into believing him. Neither Janice nor Maxine claimed that Morse deceived them into paying him more money when the project took longer than anticipated. * * *

   To sustain a conviction, each element of an offense must be supported by evidence. [Citation.] Theft by deception is a specific intent crime, and therefore, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Morse had the specific intent to defraud the Heffrons when he agreed to remodel the bathroom. Here the evidence offered by the State ‘‘is so insubstantial and insufficient, and of such slight probative value, that it is not proper to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that [Morse] committed all of the acts constituting the elements of the offense[.]’’

    Reversed.