§707-727 Custodial interference in the
second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of custodial interference
in the second degree if:
(a) The person intentionally or knowingly takes,
entices, conceals, or detains a minor knowing that the person has no right to
do so; or
(b) The person intentionally or knowingly takes,
entices, conceals, or detains from lawful custody any incompetent person, or
other person entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person or
an institution.
(2) Custodial interference in the second
degree is a misdemeanor, if the minor or incompetent person is taken, enticed,
concealed, or detained within the State. If the minor or incompetent person is
taken, enticed, concealed, or detained outside of the State under this section,
custodial interference in the second degree is a class C felony. [L 1981, c
171, pt of §1; am L 1994, c 245, §2]
Case Notes
Defendant's assistance to ward of State who had run away from
foster home was de minimis infraction under section 702-236. 73 H. 75, 828
P.2d 269 (1992).
COMMENTARY ON §§707-726 AND 707-727
Act 171, Session Laws 1981, repealed §707-723, relating to
custodial interference, a misdemeanor, and enacted §§707-726 and 707-727 to
recognize two degrees of custodial interference--in the first degree and in the
second degree--and to make first degree custodial interference a felony. A
primary reason for creating the felony offense was to enable the State to
utilize its power of extradition and to seek federal assistance under the
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-611). Senate Standing
Committee Report No. 792, House Standing Committee Report No. 613. Section
707-727 retains most of the language of repealed §707-723 and reclassifies the
offense as custodial interference in the second degree.
Act 48, Session Laws 1982, amended §707-726 by making the
violation of an ex parte temporary restraining order, formerly treated as a
misdemeanor, a class C felony. This amendment will provide for punishment
commensurate with the violation and allow for the utilization of interstate and
federal law enforcement agencies to assist in the return of the absent person.
Act 314, Session Laws 1986, amended §707-726 by creating a
new class C felony for any person who knowingly takes or entices another person
less than eleven years old from that person's lawful custodian, if that taking
was with the knowledge that the actor had no right to do so. Conference
Committee Report No. 51-86.
Act 245, Session Laws 1994, amended §707-726 to make it an
offense to intentionally or knowingly violate a court order or take, entice,
conceal, or detain a minor or child. Act 245 amended §707-727 to make it an
offense to intentionally or knowingly take, entice, conceal, or detain a minor
or incompetent person, and created a class C felony for custodial interference
in the second degree if the minor or incompetent person is taken, enticed,
concealed, or detained outside of the State. The amendments to the sections
were made to include penalties and language necessary to trigger the assistance
of federal authorities. Conference Committee Report No. 26.
Act 146, Session Laws 1996, amended §707-726 by broadening
the offense of custodial interference in the first degree to include the
abduction and removal of a child from the State by any person in violation of a
court order or before a court order is issued. Under current law, if there is
no court order determining custody, a parent who interferes with another
parent's right to custody does not commit custodial interference. When a
parent takes a child out-of-state, law enforcement is unable to commence an
investigation until after a court order determining the child's custody has
been made. Current law thus delays the search for the child taken
out-of-state. Act 146 also expanded the definition of the person acting. The
legislature found that parents and relatives who want to gain physical custody
of a child through self-help will seek the assistance of any willing person.
The Act also defined "good cause" and made "good cause" an
affirmative defense to a prosecution for custodial interference in the first
degree. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 2029, House Standing Committee
Report No. 1239-96, Conference Committee Report No. 74.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case:
State v. Rapozo, 235 P.3d 325 (Haw. 2010).
State v. Rapozo, 235 P.3d 325 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 16× “(quoting HRS § 707-727). This court explained that the plain language of the statute "[made] it a crime to knowingly interfere with lawful custody of a child below the age of eighteen and is clearly intended to protect the interests of the minor and that of the minor's lawful…”
State v. Carmichael, 53 P.3d 214 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 9× “Therefore, although Akina's behavior was prohibited under the plain language of HRS § 707-727, the Akina court considered the de minimis statute applicable.”
State v. Akina, 828 P.2d 269 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 11× “HRS § 707-727 provides: (1) A person commits the offense of custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) He knowingly takes or entices a person less than eighteen years old from his lawful custodian, knowing that he has no right to do so[.”
State v. Satoafaiga., 504 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 4× “10 And Count Four alleged that she committed Custodial Interference in the Second Degree on the same date, in violation of HRS § 707-727(1)(a) (2014).11 The circuit court later dismissed Count Three for failing to provide Satoafaiga with adequate notice.”
State v. Asuncion, 205 P.3d 577 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “, a minor, in violation of HRS § 707-727 (Supp.2008). 2 On July 6, 2004, the district court 3 filed an order setting forth the terms and conditions of Asuncion’s probation sentence (July 6, 2004 Order), which provided, in relevant part, as follows: IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT…”
Rq v. Kq, 525 P.3d 707 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “First, Father argues that the Family Court erred in determining there was no "cause of action" for Mother's "violation of HRS § 707-727." HRS § 707-727 (2014), which is part of Hawaii's Penal Code, provides in part that a person commits the offense of custodial interference in…”
State v. Satoafaiga, 482 P.3d 566 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Interference in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-727 (2014).3 Satoafaiga raises a single point of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in denying Satoafaiga's…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-727(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Rapozo, 235 P.3d 325 (Haw. 2010).
“(quoting HRS § 707-727). This court explained that the plain language of the statute "[made] it a crime to knowingly interfere with lawful custody of a child below the age of eighteen and is clearly intended to protect the interests of the minor and that of the minor's lawful…”
State v. Satoafaiga., 504 P.3d 324 (Haw. 2022).
“10 And Count Four alleged that she committed Custodial Interference in the Second Degree on the same date, in violation of HRS § 707-727(1)(a) (2014).11 The circuit court later dismissed Count Three for failing to provide Satoafaiga with adequate notice.”
State v. Carmichael, 53 P.3d 214 (Haw. 2002).
“Therefore, although Akina's behavior was prohibited under the plain language of HRS § 707-727, the Akina court considered the de minimis statute applicable.”
State v. Akina, 828 P.2d 269 (Haw. 1992).
“HRS § 707-727 provides: (1) A person commits the offense of custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) He knowingly takes or entices a person less than eighteen years old from his lawful custodian, knowing that he has no right to do so[.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-727(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Carmichael, 53 P.3d 214 (Haw. 2002).
“Therefore, although Akina's behavior was prohibited under the plain language of HRS § 707-727, the Akina court considered the de minimis statute applicable.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-727(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Rapozo, 235 P.3d 325 (Haw. 2010).
“(quoting HRS § 707-727). This court explained that the plain language of the statute "[made] it a crime to knowingly interfere with lawful custody of a child below the age of eighteen and is clearly intended to protect the interests of the minor and that of the minor's lawful…”
State v. Akina, 828 P.2d 269 (Haw. 1992).
“HRS § 707-727 provides: (1) A person commits the offense of custodial interference in the second degree if: (a) He knowingly takes or entices a person less than eighteen years old from his lawful custodian, knowing that he has no right to do so[.”
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.