§702-201 "Voluntary act" defined.
"Voluntary act" means a bodily movement performed consciously or
habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant. [L
1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §702-201
This section defines "voluntary act" in general
terms relying chiefly on the characteristic of voluntariness--the effort and
determination of the defendant. The Code's formulation is intended to exclude
from the category of voluntary action such bodily movements as (a) reflex or
convulsions, (b) bodily movements during unconsciousness and sleep, (c) conduct
during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion, and (d) any other bodily
movement that is not a product of the effort and determination of the
defendant, either conscious or habitual.
The exclusion of involuntary action from the scope of penal
liability must be viewed in the light of the provisions of chapter 704 on
physical disease, disorder, and defect which exclude penal responsibility. In
that chapter acquittal is conditioned on submission to treatment or commitment
tailored to the condition which excludes responsibility. The Code attempts to
provide "therapy or ... custodial commitment"[1] for those dangerous
individuals who are unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the
law because of some condition which would be difficult to regard as a
"mental disease or defect" under orthodox treatment of penal
irresponsibility. At the same time, because treatment is flexible and tailored
to the condition in question, it does not bear "harshly on the individual
whose condition is nonrecurrent."[2]
No prior Hawaii statutory provision dealt with the issue of
voluntariness of acts (other than in its relation to duress or mental disease,
disorder, or defect), however, a recent case tends to support the position of
the Code.[3]
__________
§702-201 Commentary:
1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 119 (1955).
2. Id. at 121.
3. See State v. Matsuda, 50 Haw. 128, 432 P.2d 888 (1967).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case:
State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13 (Haw. 2000).
State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 4× “" HRS § 702-201 defines "voluntary act" as "a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant.”
State v. Moniz, 992 P.2d 741 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 702-201 (1993). "`Voluntary act' 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).
· cites it 2× “Hence, in proving the conduct element, the prosecution will have in fact presented evidence of the "voluntary act,” HRS § 702-201 (1993), which, pursuant to HRS § 702-202, "includes possession," because the "elements of an offense [include] such .”
State v. Feliciano, 115 P.3d 648 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 2× “" Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 702-201 (1993). [7] HRS § 701-118(4) defines "conduct" as "an act or omission, or, where relevant, a series of acts or a series of omissions, or a series of acts and omissions[.”
State v. Auwae, 968 P.2d 1070 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 702-201 (1993). With respect to possession, HRS § 702-202 states that “possession is a voluntary act if the defendant knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or if the defendant was aware of the defendant’s control of it for a sufficient period to have been…”
State v. Pond, 181 P.3d 415 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The supreme court determined, however, that the circuit court’s erroneous response to a jury communication 12 “adversely affected Aganon’s substantial rights and, as such, constituted plain error[,]” warranting vacatur of Aganon’s conviction and sentence and a remand for a new…”
State v. Foster., 282 P.3d 560 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 702-201 (1993). A “ ‘[voluntary act’ means a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant.”
State v. Keawemauhili, 157 P.3d 539 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Whether the District Court Erred in Applying HRS § 702-201 to Supply the “Intentional, Knowing, or Reckless” State of Mind for the Elements of the Camping-Without-ar-Permit Offense During the proceedings below, Appellants argued that Camping Rule § 3(5), by ex *106 pressly…”
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.