In a Criminal Case Brought by a Restaurant Against a Patron

In a criminal case brought by a restaurant against a patron for failing to pay the bill, what is true about intention to defraud?

A) Intention to defraud is not an element of the criminal case, and therefore the restaurant does not need to prove it.
B) The restaurant must provide evidence establishing that the defendant intended to defraud the restaurant.
C) Once the evidence is presented that the defendant received food without paying, a rebuttable presumption arises that the defendant intended to avoid payment. This presumption eliminates the need to present evidence of intent to defraud.
D) Whether or not the restaurant must prove intention to defraud is a matter of the judge's discretion.