Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222 (2026)

Liability for conduct of another; complicity

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§702-222 Liability for conduct of another; complicity. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:

(1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person:

(a) Solicits the other person to commit it;

(b) Aids or agrees or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it; or

(2) The person's conduct is expressly declared by law to establish the person's complicity. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]

Revision Note

In paragraph (1)(a), "or" deleted pursuant to §23G-15.

COMMENTARY ON §702-222

This section sets forth the types and extent of complicity in the penal conduct of another. In subsection (1) the Code sets forth the state of mind that is required--"intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense"--and the nature of action or omission on the part of the defendant which is sufficient to establish complicity in and liability for the conduct of another. The Code avoids the vague concept of conspiracy in basing penal liability on the conduct of another, and focuses instead on the conduct of the accused which is sufficient to establish the accused's complicity.

The Code includes solicitation, aid, agreement and attempt to aid, and the failure to make a proper effort to exercise a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense. Since the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense is present, there is no risk of innocence. Given the intent specified, the inclusion of attempts to aid seems entirely proper. Acquittal should not be had upon a showing of ineffective aid. "Where complicity is based upon agreement or encouragement, one does not ask for evidence that they were actually operative psychologically on the person who committed the offense; there ought to be no difference in the case of aid."[1]

It should be pointed out that approval of the conduct of another is not to be implied from the phrase "with intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense." For example, a landlord who leases premises with intent to facilitate another's establishing an illegal gambling casino or narcotics den would be liable regardless of the landlord's personal predilections.

Subsection (2) preserves the concept that special legislation may declare specific conduct of the accused sufficient to establish the accused's complicity in the conduct of another. Such legislation is an analogue to that declaring particular acts of assistance independent offenses. Thus, for example, being a member of a mob may suffice to establish complicity in a riot or looting or lynching.

Previous Hawaii law on complicity was more simplified and "modern" than that found in most states which have not undertaken a recent revision of their penal laws, and to a substantial degree was similar in effect to the Code provision. However, the prior statute did draw distinctions based on (1) presence at the offense (which has been liberally interpreted), and (2) participation (as opposed to aid, command, or encouragement).[2] These verbal distinctions, however, were apparently without legal consequence; under the prior statute every person who aids in the commission of a crime or who "abets..., procures, counsels, incites, commands or hires another to commit the same"[3] "is guilty of such offense."[4] Although the statutory law did not resort to the term "conspiracy" to establish complicity, the court has.[5] This should be avoided because in some instances, where the chain of conspirators has become attenuated, imposition of liability, on the basis of complicity, for acts of remote conspirators might be of questionable wisdom.

Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) rationalize the prior law, delete archaic phrases, and achieve greater clarity. Subsection (1)(c), which establishes complicity for failure to exercise a legal duty to prevent the offense, is an addition to the law.

Case Notes

Evidence held sufficient to prove defendant was an accomplice in the commission of burglary. 58 H. 404, 570 P.2d 844 (1977).

Instruction on law of principals and accomplices was not erroneous. 59 H. 625, 586 P.2d 250 (1978).

Statute provides for liability where an accomplice simply aids the perpetrator in committing an offense. 61 H. 475, 605 P.2d 75 (1980).

Accomplice jury instruction did not contain mens rea element. 72 H. 278, 815 P.2d 428 (1991).

Where defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant was an accomplice to an assault in any degree, and evidence was adduced that defendant pushed a person who was involved in a motor vehicle accident, causing the person to fall to the ground, and defendant held the person on the ground before the driver of a car involved in the accident jumped onto the person, substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion. 132 H. 97, 319 P.3d 1105 (2014).

Plain language of section imposes no requirement that a joint legal duty exist before accomplice liability is imposed. 10 H. App. 73, 861 P.2d 37 (1993).

Cited: 9 H. App. 551, 851 P.2d 926 (1993); 78 H. 488 (App.), 896 P.2d 944 (1995).

Discussed: 133 H. 66, 324 P.3d 876 (2014).

__________

§702-222 Commentary:

1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 1, comments at 27 (1953).

2. H.R.S. §§704-1, 704-3.

3. Id. §704-3.

4. Id. §704-4.

5. State v. Yoshino, 45 Haw. 640, 372 P.2d 208 (1962); State v. Yoshida, 45 Haw. 50, 361 P.2d 1032 (1961).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Basham., 319 P.3d 1105 (Haw. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Basham., 319 P.3d 1105 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 28× “The State requested jury instructions related to accomplice liability under HRS § 702-222, which provides that a person is an accomplice of another in the commission of an offense if, with the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person aids…”

State v. Walton., 324 P.3d 876 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 8× “HRS § 702-222 (emphasis added). Here, the circuit court instructed the jury with respect to accomplice liability as follows: A defendant charged with committing an offense may be guilty because he is an accomplice of another person in the commission of the offense.”

State v. Hernandez, 605 P.2d 75 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 6× “HRS § 702-222 provides that: A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he: (b) Aids or agrees or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing…”

State v. Maganis, 123 P.3d 679 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 5× “HRS § 702-222 states, in its entirety: § 702-222 Liability for conduct of another; complicity.”

State v. Tucker, 861 P.2d 37 (Haw. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “HRS § 702-222 (1985), which defines accomplice liability under the Hawaii Penal Code, specifically provides, in pertinent part: A person is a accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of…”

State v. Tucker, 10 Haw. App. 73 (Haw. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “*81 HRS § 702-222 (1985), which defines accomplice liability under the Hawaii Penal Code, specifically provides, in pertinent part: A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission…”

State v. Yip, 987 P.2d 996 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “ability is predicated upon the commission, by his principal, of an underlying offense: A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person: [[Image here]]…”

Garringer v. State, 909 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 4× “]" HRS § 702-222(1)(b). The record clearly demonstrates that Garringer aided the Minor in committing robbery.”

State v. Fukusaku, 946 P.2d 32 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 2× “HRS § 702-222 (1993) provides in relevant part: Liability for conduct of another; complicity.”

State v. Estencion, 625 P.2d 1040 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 2× “The State of Hawaii appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the charge of burglary in the second degree (HRS §§ 702-222(l)(b) and 708-811 (1976)) against defendant Aaron Ross Estencion under Rule 48(b), 1 Hawaii Rules of Penal *266 Procedure (HRPP).”

State v. Scott., 319 P.3d 252 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 4× “9 HRS § 702-222 (1993) provides in relevant part: A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person: .”

State v. Ortiz, 981 P.2d 1127 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “HRS § 702-222 (1993) provides in relevant part: Liability for conduct of another; complicity.”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222(1) — 2 cases

State v. Basham., 319 P.3d 1105 (Haw. 2014). “The State requested jury instructions related to accomplice liability under HRS § 702-222, which provides that a person is an accomplice of another in the commission of an offense if, with the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person aids…”

State v. Lafoga. Consol. With Case No. CAAP-20-0000589., 510 P.3d 1098 (Haw. App. 2022).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222(1)(b) — 6 cases

Garringer v. State, 909 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1996). “]" HRS § 702-222(1)(b). The record clearly demonstrates that Garringer aided the Minor in committing robbery.”

Kahawaiolaa v. Hawaiian Sun Investments, Inc., 463 P.3d 1081 (Haw. 2020).

State v. Rullman, 896 P.2d 944 (Haw. App. 1995).

State v. Hirano, 802 P.2d 482 (Haw. App. 1990).

State v. Ngalu, Jr. (Haw. App. 2021).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222(1)(c) — 2 cases

State v. Tucker, 861 P.2d 37 (Haw. App. 1993). “HRS § 702-222 (1985), which defines accomplice liability under the Hawaii Penal Code, specifically provides, in pertinent part: A person is a accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of…”

State v. Jackson, 944 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222(l)(b) — 5 cases

State v. Estencion, 625 P.2d 1040 (Haw. 1981). “The State of Hawaii appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the charge of burglary in the second degree (HRS §§ 702-222(l)(b) and 708-811 (1976)) against defendant Aaron Ross Estencion under Rule 48(b), 1 Hawaii Rules of Penal *266 Procedure (HRPP).”

State v. Maganis, 123 P.3d 679 (Haw. 2005). “HRS § 702-222 states, in its entirety: § 702-222 Liability for conduct of another; complicity.”

Garringer v. State, 909 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1996). “]" HRS § 702-222(1)(b). The record clearly demonstrates that Garringer aided the Minor in committing robbery.”

State v. Jim, 97 P.3d 395 (Haw. App. 2004).

State v. Maganis, 123 P.3d 684 (Haw. App. 2005).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-222(l)(c) — 1 case

State v. Tucker, 10 Haw. App. 73 (Haw. App. 1993). “*81 HRS § 702-222 (1985), which defines accomplice liability under the Hawaii Penal Code, specifically provides, in pertinent part: A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission…”

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.