§702-205 Elements of an offense. The
elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and
(3) results of conduct, as:
(a) Are specified by the definition of the offense,
and
(b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based
on the statute of limitations, lack of venue, or lack of jurisdiction). [L
1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §702-205
As explained in the commentary to §702-204, a clear analysis
requires that the various distinct ingredients of an offense be separately
recognized. The ingredients, denominated "elements" in §702-205, are
the conduct, the circumstances attendant to conduct, and the results of
conduct, which are specified in the definition of an offense and which negative
a defense on the merits.
The effect of including within the definition of "element"
facts (conduct, attendant circumstances, results) which negative a defense on
the merits (a defense other than one based on the statute of limitations, lack
of venue, or lack of jurisdiction) is to postulate an equivalence of the state
of mind required to establish a particular offense regardless of the diverse
circumstances giving rise to the charge. Thus, if the crime of murder requires
that the defendant act intentionally or knowingly with respect to each element,
one who intentionally kills another, recklessly mistaken that the other's
conduct threatens one's life, would not be guilty of murder, although one might
be guilty of a crime requiring only recklessness. Since the defendant must act
intentionally or knowingly with respect to attendant circumstances which
negative the defense of self-defense, conviction for murder would fail unless
it could be proven that defendant knew or believed that the defendant's
assailant's conduct did not in fact threaten serious bodily harm or death.
Prior Hawaii law did not deal directly with the problem of
defining "element" of an offense; however, the question has been
treated tangentially in cases involving sufficient corroboration of
extrajudicial confessions. A footnote in one case has provided the following
comment and definition:
Proof of the commission of a crime
consists of three elements, each of which must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt: (1) the basic injury, such as the death in murder, the burning in
arson, or the missing property in theft, (2) the fact that the basic injury was
the result of a criminal, rather than a natural or accidental cause, and (3)
the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. The first
two of these elements constitute the corpus delicti or body of the crime, which
is proved when the prosecution has shown that a crime has been committed by
someone.[1]
However, the same opinion, which involved a charge of burglary,
also referred to that requirement, under the prior law, that the entry be
accompanied by an intent to commit a felony, as an "essential element".[2]
The Code seeks to eliminate the somewhat inconsistent use of
the word "element" and to provide a less abstract and more meaningful
definition.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §702-205
The legislature enacted §702-205 of the Proposed Draft of the
Code without change; however, in chapter 703, dealing with defenses of
justification, the legislature departed from the Proposed Draft and required an
objective assessment of the defendant's state of mind, or a "reasonable
belief" on the defendant's part, respecting the attendant circumstances
which justify conduct otherwise deemed unlawful. Therefore, the example set
forth in the second paragraph of the above commentary is no longer applicable.
Law Journals and Reviews
Agonizing Over Aganon: A New Approach to Drafting Jury
Instructions in Criminal Cases. 10 HBJ, no. 13, at 73 (2007).
Case Notes
Section not inconsistent with entrapment provisions of
§701-115. 58 H. 479, 572 P.2d 159 (1977).
Pursuant to the definition of "element" set forth
in this section, the prior conviction reference in §709-906(7) constitutes an
element of the offense of the felony abuse charge. 116 H. 3, 169 P.3d 955
(2007).
Cited: 134 H. 333, 341 P.3d 539 (2014).
Mentioned: 75 H. 152, 857 P.2d 579 (1993).
__________
§702-205 Commentary:
1. State v. Hale, 45 Haw. 269, 277n, 367 P.2d 81, 86n (1961).
2. Id.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
125
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nesmith, 276 P.3d 617 (Haw. 2012).
State v. Nesmith, 276 P.3d 617 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 104× “" HRS § 702-205 (1993). There is no state of mind specified within HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) itself.”
State v. Jones, 29 P.3d 351 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 39× “General Principles HRS § 702-205 (1993) defines the "elements of an offense" as: such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the…”
State v. Aiwohi, 123 P.3d 1210 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 24× “" *1214 HRS § 702-205 (1993). Consequently, in order to satisfy the state of mind requirement, a person must act "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law specifies, with respect to each element of the offense.”
State v. Klinge, 994 P.2d 509 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 28× “Under HRS § 702-205 (1993), "[t]he elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense[.”
State v. Mita, 245 P.3d 458 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 26× “(citing HRS § 702-205 (1993)). [7] This court emphasized that although the charge tracked the language of the statute, the term "operate" as used in HRS § 291E-61 "is neither `unmistakable' nor `readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding'" and therefore did not…”
State v. Ruggiero, 160 P.3d 703 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 18× “3d at 416 (citing HRS § 702-205 (1993) (defining elements of an offense)).”
State v. Culkin, 35 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 16× “HRS § 702-205 (1993) identifies the elements of an offense to be such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of…”
State v. Buch, 926 P.2d 599 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 24× “Pursuant to HRS § 702-205 (1993), the "elements of an offense" are defined as such conduct, attendant circumstances, and results of conduct as are (1) specified by the statutory definition of the offense and (2) negative a defense on the merits ( i.”
State v. Augustin, 63 P.3d 1097 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 22× “To reach its conclusion, the Smith court quoted the supplemental commentary to HRS § 702-205: Self-defense is a justification defense.”
State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 16× “HRS § 702-205 (1993) states: The elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of limitations,…”
State v. Arceo, 928 P.2d 843 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 12× “General principles Pursuant to HRS § 702-205 (1993), the "elements of an offense" are defined as such conduct, [9] attendant circumstances, and results of conduct as are (1) specified by the statutory definition of the offense and (2) negative a defense on the merits ( i.”
State v. Yamada, 57 P.3d 467 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 16× “HRS § 701-115 (1993) (if the defendant presents evidence of "a fact or set of facts" that constitute a defense and the defense is not an affirmative defense, then "the defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the trier of fact finds that the evidence, when considered in *476 the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-205(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Yamada, 57 P.3d 467 (Haw. 2002).
“HRS § 701-115 (1993) (if the defendant presents evidence of "a fact or set of facts" that constitute a defense and the defense is not an affirmative defense, then "the defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the trier of fact finds that the evidence, when considered in *476 the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-205(a) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 29 P.3d 351 (Haw. 2001).
“General Principles HRS § 702-205 (1993) defines the "elements of an offense" as: such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-205(b) — 10 cases
State v. Jones, 29 P.3d 351 (Haw. 2001).
“General Principles HRS § 702-205 (1993) defines the "elements of an offense" as: such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the…”
State v. Culkin, 35 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2001).
“HRS § 702-205 (1993) identifies the elements of an offense to be such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of…”
State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
“HRS § 702-205 (1993) states: The elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as: (a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and (b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of limitations,…”
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.