Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 702
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-200 (2026)

  Requirement of voluntary act or voluntary omission

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §702-200  Requirement of voluntary act or voluntary omission.  (1)  In any prosecution it is a defense that the conduct alleged does not include a voluntary act or the voluntary omission to perform an act of which the defendant is physically capable.

     (2)  Where the defense provided in subsection (1) is based on a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect which precludes or impairs a voluntary act or a voluntary omission, the defense shall be treated exclusively according to chapter 704, except that a defense based on intoxication which is pathological or not self-induced which precludes or impairs a voluntary act or a voluntary omission shall be treated exclusively according to this chapter. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 325, §1]

 

Cross References

 

  Physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding penal responsibility, see §704-400.

 

COMMENTARY ON §702-200

 

  The effect of this section is to require, as a minimum basis for the imposition of penal liability, conduct which includes a voluntary act or voluntary omission.  In most penal cases the issue of whether the defendant's conduct includes a voluntary act or a voluntary omission will not be separately litigated.  The voluntariness of relevant acts or omissions will be evident.  The Code, by making the issue of involuntariness a defense, accordingly puts the ultimate burden on the defendant to inject that issue into the case.  The burden, of course, can be met by the prosecutor if he raises the issue.  Once the question of voluntariness has been raised, the prosecution has the burden of proving that issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

  A voluntary act or omission will not, of course, be sufficient alone to impose penal liability.  If, however, the issue of voluntariness is raised, such an act or omission must be established if penal liability is to obtain.  Statutory law cannot hope to command or deter acts over which the accused has no control.  Moreover, any attempt at moral condemnation of involuntary acts or omissions through the use of the penal sanction would ultimately disserve the integrity of the penal law.

  The direct effect of this section is to preclude "status crimes"--the most obvious of which is vagrancy.  Since the impoverished condition of the accused would not, without more, constitute or include a voluntary act or omission, conviction would be precluded.

  The formulation of this section is intended to permit liability in those cases where liability is not predicated on a voluntary act or omission but on a course of conduct initiated by a voluntary act.  Thus, an automobile driver who suddenly loses consciousness and kills a pedestrian would not have performed a voluntary act giving rise to liability.  However, if the driver had disregarded a known risk that consciousness might be lost and had commenced or continued driving, that included a voluntary act might be sufficient to impose penal liability.

  The prior Hawaii statutory law[1] is similar to this section but its logical implication with regard to status crimes has not been examined as carefully as might have been hoped.  While being a vagrant was unlawful, being a leper was not.[2]

 

__________

§702-200 Commentary:

 

1.  H.R.S. §701-1 ("doing what a penal law forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands").

 

2.  Segregation of Lepers, 5 Haw. 162 (1884).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13 (Haw. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 10× “Therefore, this section makes it explicit that possession is an act, within the meaning of §§ 702-200 and 201, [ see supra note 19,] if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to…”
State v. Kupihea, 46 P.3d 498 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 9× “Thus, HRS § 702-200 (1993) is meant lo require "as a minimum basis for the imposition of penal liability, conduct which includes a voluntary act or voluntary omission.”
State v. Auwae, 968 P.2d 1070 (Haw. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “]” Commentary on HRS § 702-200. A voluntary act, in turn, “means a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant.”
State v. Johnson, 653 P.2d 428 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “Because he “blacked-out” immediately prior to the collision, defendant argues that he could not have committed a voluntary act and, therefore, he may raise the defense as set forth in HRS § 702-200. 2 Defendant testified that he had no recollection of what *479 happened…”
State v. Brown, 37 P.3d 572 (Haw. App. 2001). “Therefore, this section makes it explicit that possession is an act, within the meaning of §§ 702-200 and 201, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate possession.”
State v. Cardona. ICA s.d.o., filed 02/06/2024 [ada], 153 Haw. 579. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/25/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/07/2024 [ada]., 556 P.3d 369 (Haw. 2024). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 702-200(1) (“In any prosecution it is a defense that the conduct alleged does not include a voluntary act .”
State v. Baybado, 154 P.3d 432 (Haw. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “On appeal, Baybado argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to give his requested "voluntary act" instruction, which was based on HRS §§ 702-200 (1993) and 702-201 (1993), where there was evidence that the accident may have occurred after Baybado fell asleep.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-200(1) — 4 cases
State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13 (Haw. 2000). “Therefore, this section makes it explicit that possession is an act, within the meaning of §§ 702-200 and 201, [ see supra note 19,] if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to…”
State v. Auwae, 968 P.2d 1070 (Haw. App. 1998). “]” Commentary on HRS § 702-200. A voluntary act, in turn, “means a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant.”
State v. Kupihea, 46 P.3d 498 (Haw. 2002). “Thus, HRS § 702-200 (1993) is meant lo require "as a minimum basis for the imposition of penal liability, conduct which includes a voluntary act or voluntary omission.”
State v. Cardona. ICA s.d.o., filed 02/06/2024 [ada], 153 Haw. 579. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/25/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/07/2024 [ada]., 556 P.3d 369 (Haw. 2024). “See HRS § 702-200(1) (“In any prosecution it is a defense that the conduct alleged does not include a voluntary act .”
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.