§702-223 Liability for conduct of another;
complicity with respect to the result. When causing a particular result is
an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing the result is an
accomplice in the commission of that offense, if the accomplice acts, with
respect to that result, with the state of mind that is sufficient for the
commission of the offense. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]
COMMENTARY ON §702-223
This section is intended to make clear that a defendant
charged, on the basis of the defendant's complicity in the conduct of another,
with causing a particular result will not be allowed to escape accountability
for the result because the defendant solicited or aided, etc., a different or
more limited result if the defendant had the requisite state of mind with
respect to the actual result.
Thus, for example, one who urges a driver to increase the
speed of an automobile, disregarding known risks to pedestrians, would stand in
the same position as the driver on a charge of reckless homicide and would not
be allowed to defend on the ground that one solicited the violation of the
traffic law and not the homicide law.
Case Notes
Instruction on law of principals and accomplices was not
erroneous. 59 H. 625, 586 P.2d 250 (1978).
Accomplice in commission of robbery. 62 H. 25, 608 P.2d 855
(1980).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case:
State v. Kaiama, 911 P.2d 735 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Kaiama, 911 P.2d 735 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 8× “The first sentence of the prosecution’s proffered instruction tracks the exact language of HRS § 702-223 (1985). 31 Thus, as Kaiama concedes, the first sentence “is a correct statement of the law.”
State v. Scott., 319 P.3d 252 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 4× “] 10 HRS § 702-223 (1993) provides: When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing the result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if the accomplice acts, with respect to that result, with the state of mind that…”
State v. Apao, 586 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 702-223 states: When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing the result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts, with respect to that result, with the state of mind that is sufficient for the…”
State v. Churchill, 664 P.2d 757 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Defendants also argue that the court should have instructed the jury on the provisions of HRS § 702-223 (1976). [3] However, defendants did not request such an instruction, did not object to the failure of the court so to instruct the jury, and will not be heard on appeal.”
State v. Churchill, 664 P.2d 757 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Defendants also argue that the court should have instructed the jury on the provisions of HRS § 702-223 (1976). 3 *285 However, defendants did not request such an instruction, did not object to the failure of the court so to instruct the jury, and will not be heard on appeal.”
State v. Duk Won Lee, 925 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “] HRS § 702-223 (1993) provides: Liability for conduct of another; complicity with respect to the result.”
Sanders v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (D. Haw. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-223 , a person is liable as an accomplice to an offense when she knowingly or intentionally causes the commission of that offense.”
State v. Toma (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” The circuit court 7 The commentary to HRS § 702-223 gives the following example: [O]ne who urges a driver to increase the speed of an automobile, disregarding known risks to pedestrians, would stand in the same position as the driver on a charge of reckless homicide and would…”
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.