§701-104 Principles of construction.
The provisions of this Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to create
crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and effect
the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine
construction, according to the fair import of the words, taken in their usual
sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purpose of the
provision. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §701-104
This section, read in conjunction with §701-103, is intended
to assure that this Code will be construed by the courts in such a way as to
effectuate the declared purposes of the law.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §701-104
Section 104 of the Proposed Draft of the Code read: "The
rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this
Code, but the provisions herein must be construed according to the fair import
of their terms." The legislature found that such broad wording would
subject the Code to unwarranted argument and attempted to avoid this
possibility by revising the entire section. Through the section, as enacted,
the legislature sought to limit the scope of the fair import principle. See Conference
Committee Report No. 2 (1972). The committee report also states: "It is
the intent of the Committee that definitions of crimes are to be strictly
construed."
Case Notes
In Coray v. Ariyoshi, 54 H. 254, 506 P.2d 13 (1973), and
State v. Rackle, 55 H. 531, 523 P.2d 299 (1974), the court reiterated without
discussion the doctrine of strict construction. The offenses in each case
occurred prior to enactment of the Code.
Where words of general description follow enumeration of
specific things, the words are restricted to like objects. 56 H. 481, 541 P.2d
1020 (1975).
Rule of strict construction does not override other
fundamental rules of construction. 59 H. 456, 583 P.2d 337 (1978).
Proscription of distribution of lysergic acid "diethylamine"
under §329-14 (1974) cannot be extended by analogy to distribution of lysergic
acid diethylamide. 61 H. 74, 595 P.2d 288 (1979).
Cited in construing "accident". 1 H. App. 625, 623
P.2d 1271 (1981).
Cited in construing "possession". 8 H. App. 610,
822 P.2d 23 (1991).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1978–2016 · leading case:
State v. Aiwohi, 123 P.3d 1210 (Haw. 2005).
State v. Aiwohi, 123 P.3d 1210 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 16× “According to HRS § 701-104 (1993), "[t]he provisions of [the HPC] cannot be *1224 extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine…”
State v. Buch, 926 P.2d 599 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 12× “106, 108 (1893), which it analogized to HRS § 701-104 (1976), [3] for the following "principle of construction" *617 that, in its view, remained "sound": We cannot change the language of the statute, supply a want, or enlarge upon it in order to make it suit a certain state of…”
State v. Dudoit, 978 P.2d 700 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 8× “106, 108 (1893), which it analogized to HRS § 701-104 (1976), [9] for the following "principle of construction" that, in its view, remained "sound": We cannot change the language of the statute, supply a want, or enlarge upon it in order to make it suit a certain state of facts.”
State v. Maumalanga, 976 P.2d 410 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 20× “The provisions of this Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair import of the…”
State v. Arceo, 928 P.2d 843 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 701-104 (1993). See Holbron , 80 Hawai`i at 45, 904 P.”
State v. Gaylord, 890 P.2d 1167 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The provisions of this [Hawai`i Penal] Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair…”
State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc., 137 P.3d 331 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The prosecution highlights the requirement of HRS § 701-104 (1993) that words be taken “in their usual sense” absent statutory definition and cites Black’s Law Dictionary at 788 (4th ed.”
State v. Meyer, 595 P.2d 288 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 5× “*77 In this connection, reference may be made to Hawaii Penal Code § 701-104, which reads: § 701-104 Principles of construction.”
State v. Smith, 583 P.2d 337 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 4× “” We are aware of the provisions of HRS § 701-104 (1976 Repl.) which states the principles of construction for the Hawaii Penal Code.”
State v. Holbron, 904 P.2d 912 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “]” HRS § 701-104 (1993). Tagaro was certainly entitled to have the jury consider his claim of self-defense; however, if the prosecution succeeded in negativing the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, see HRS §§ 701-114(l)(a) and 702-205(b), then his intentional or knowing conduct…”
State v. Paris., 378 P.3d 970 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 6× “”) (citations omitted); see also HRS § 701-104 (2014) (“The provisions of [the Hawaii Penal Code] cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for herein.”
State v. Liuafi, 623 P.2d 1271 (Haw. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “In construing the term “accident”, HRS § 701-104 (1976) 5 (Principles of construction) requires “a genuine construction, according to the fair import of the words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purpose of the provision”.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 701-104(1993) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.