Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840 (2026)

  Robbery in the first degree

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART V.  ROBBERY

 

     §708-840  Robbery in the first degree.  (1)  A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle:

     (a)  The person attempts to kill another or intentionally or knowingly inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury upon another;

     (b)  The person is armed with a dangerous instrument, an electric gun, or a simulated firearm and:

          (i)  The person uses force against the person of anyone present with intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance; or

         (ii)  The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property;

     (c)  The person uses force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance during an emergency period proclaimed by the governor or mayor pursuant to chapter 127A, within the area covered by the emergency or disaster; or

     (d)  The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property during an emergency period proclaimed by the governor or mayor pursuant to chapter 127A, within the area covered by the emergency or disaster.

     (2)  As used in this section:

     "Dangerous instrument" means any firearm, whether loaded or not, and whether operable or not, or other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or threatened to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

     "Electric gun" shall have the same meaning as in section 134-81.

     "Simulated firearm" means any object that:

     (a)  Substantially resembles a firearm;

     (b)  Can reasonably be perceived to be a firearm; or

     (c)  Is used or brandished as a firearm.

     (3)  Robbery in the first degree is a class A felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1983, c 68, §1; am L 1986, c 314, §68; gen ch 1993; am L 1998, c 68, §1; am L 2006, c 116, §7 and c 230, §41; am L 2013, c 255, §2; am L 2014, c 111, §21; am L 2022, c 51, §2]

 

Case Notes

 

  Act of violence or intimidation need not be done for very purpose of taking the property to constitute robbery.  56 H. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975).

  In absence of evidence that gun was not loaded or capable of being fired, an inference exists that it was capable of inflicting the harm which the robber threatened and was a dangerous instrument within this section.  57 H. 150, 552 P.2d 357 (1976).

  Whether instrument used in robbery is a dangerous instrument is a question of fact for jury to resolve.  57 H. 365, 556 P.2d 569 (1976).

  Assault by person armed with dangerous instrument with intent to rob is within subsection (1)(b)(i).  59 H. 148, 577 P.2d 793 (1978).

  Accomplice.  62 H. 25, 608 P.2d 855 (1980).

  Applicability of claim of right defense.  62 H. 25, 608 P.2d 855 (1980).

  An unloaded gun as a dangerous instrument.  63 H. 405, 629 P.2d 626 (1981).

  Threatened use of force against several persons did not constitute more than one count of robbery.  65 H. 156, 648 P.2d 197 (1982); 4 H. App. 573, 670 P.2d 1290 (1983).

  Firearms are per se dangerous weapons.  69 H. 44, 731 P.2d 1261 (1987).

  Jury instruction should have stated that if jury found defendant committed attempted murder and robbery concurrently, it need not render two verdicts.  70 H. 618, 780 P.2d 1097 (1989).

  Defendant convicted of both kidnapping and robbery because crimes did not occur concurrently.  71 H. 46, 781 P.2d 662 (1989).

  Trial judge erred in refusing to instruct jury regarding the possible merger of the robbery and kidnapping counts against defendant.  77 H. 17, 881 P.2d 504 (1994).

  First degree burglary not an included offense of first degree robbery.  81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996).

  Theft and attempted theft, regardless of degree, are included offenses of first degree robbery.  81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996).

  A victim's awareness of the theft is a necessary element of robbery pursuant to subsection (1)(b)(ii).  86 H. 37, 947 P.2d 349 (1997).

  Where defendant's conviction and sentence under this section was an included offense under §134-6(a) and defendant's convictions under both §134-4(a) and this section violated §701-109(1)(a), defendant's conviction and sentence under this section reversed.  91 H. 33, 979 P.2d 1059 (1999).

  Where defendant's convictions were premised upon the use of "any firearm" and language of indictments and trial court's instructions "to wit, a semiautomatic pistol" did not alter the statutory elements of §§134-6, 134-7, or this section, trial court's error of not providing definition of "semiautomatic firearm" did not warrant reversal of convictions of first degree robbery, carrying or use of firearm in commission of separate felony, or felon in possession of firearm.  91 H. 33, 979 P.2d 1059 (1999).

  As subsection (1)(b)(i) does not require that a defendant use force in order to compel another person to acquiesce in his or her taking of property, it is not an element of the offense that the person against whom the defendant is alleged to have used force, or the owner of the property, be aware of the theft; thus, trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the "victim" of the theft--whether the person against whom force was used or the owner of the property taken--must be aware of the theft.  99 H. 390, 56 P.3d 692 (2002).

  Whether a loaded pellet pistol is a dangerous instrument is a question of fact.  1 H. App. 481, 620 P.2d 1087 (1980).

  Where defendant did not use force in the course of committing theft, no first degree robbery committed within meaning of paragraph (1)(b)(i).  9 H. App. 263, 833 P.2d 902 (1992).

  Instructions constituted plain error, where (1) court instructed jury that a knife is a dangerous instrument; and (2) instruction defined the imminent use of force.  9 H. App. 628, 859 P.2d 925 (1993).

  Where there was substantial evidence that the manner in which the "little black stick" was used was capable of producing serious bodily injury as defined under §707-700, minor was properly convicted as an accomplice to robbery in the first degree under this section.  107 H. 439 (App.), 114 P.3d 945 (2005).

  As robbery in the first degree under subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not include the element required under §708-810(1)(c) for burglary in the first degree of intentionally entering or remaining unlawfully in a building, it was possible for defendant to commit robbery in the first degree without committing burglary in the first degree; thus the crimes are not included in each other and do not merge.  109 H. 327 (App.), 126 P.3d 370 (2005).

  There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of robbery in the first degree under this section where, inter alia, victim testified at trial that when defendant's brother put a knife to victim's neck and asked for victim's money, defendant held down victim's hands, and that both asked the victim where the victim's money was.  123 H. 456 (App.), 235 P.3d 1168 (2010).

  Where jury convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree under this section, error by circuit court when it failed to instruct jury on robbery in the second degree under §708-841 and theft in the fourth degree under §708-833, which were included offenses of robbery in the first degree, was harmless.  123 H. 456 (App.), 235 P.3d 1168 (2010).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002).
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 108× “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 80× “In those jurisdictions whose robbery statutes, like the predecessor to HRS § 708-840, [6] codify the common-law definition of robbery, the victim's awareness of the theft has been held to be a necessary predicate to robbery based on either the requirement that the actual taking…”
State v. Halemanu, 650 P.2d 587 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 30× “" Commentary to HRS §§ 708-840 and -841. Under prior Hawaii law, robbery was defined as the "`stealing of a thing from *598 the person of another or from his custody or presence, by force or putting him in fear.”
State v. Mendonca, 711 P.2d 731 (Haw. 1985). · cites it 24× “Before trial, Mendonca moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that State improperly indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (i) and should have indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(a). Mendonca asserted that State, by indicting him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) instead of…”
State v. Haanio, 16 P.3d 246 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 10× “On April 23, 1997, Petitioner was charged by way of complaint with one count of robbery in the first degree, HRS § 708-840(1)(a) (1993), [2] of Gilbert Kamoku.”
State v. Vanstory, 979 P.2d 1059 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 16× “Although the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the definition of “semiautomatic firearm,” this failure did not affect prejudi-cially Vanstory’s guilty convictions under HRS §§ 708-840, 134-6(a), or 134-7(b). However, the failure requires this court to vacate the…”
State v. Torres. ICA s.d.o., filed 05/23/2018, 142 Haw. 355., 439 P.3d 234 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 7× “1 HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (2014) provides the following: (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: .”
State v. Vinge, 916 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 16× “We further note that under HRS § 701-109(l)(d) (1993), robbery in the first degree (HRS § 708-840 (1993)) is not a specific instance of the general conduct of burglary in the first degree (HRS § 708-810 (1993)).”
State v. Hoey, 881 P.2d 504 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 8× “(3) Robbery in the first degree is a class A felony. HRS § 708-840 (1985 & Supp.”
State v. Tuua, 649 P.2d 1180 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 14× “The relevant part of section 708-840, HRS (1976), states: § 708-840 Robbery in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft: * « sjc (b) He is armed with a dangerous instrument and: (i) He uses force…”
State v. Maugaotega, 114 P.3d 905 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 10× “2003); (3) robbery in the first degree (Count III), in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) and/or (ii) (1993 & Supp.”
State v. Jumila, 950 P.2d 1201 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 12× “In Vinge , we noted that, because robbery in the first degree is defined by HRS § 708-840 (1993) as the commission of certain acts "in the course of committing theft," in order for the prosecution to prove that a defendant committed robbery in the first degree, the prosecution…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1) — 7 cases
Tomomitsu v. State, 995 P.2d 323 (Haw. App. 2000).
State v. Correa, 706 P.2d 1321 (Haw. App. 1985).
State v. Ah Choy, 780 P.2d 1097 (Haw. 1989).
State v. Napeahi, 556 P.2d 569 (Haw. 1976).
State v. Rodrigues, 742 P.2d 986 (Haw. App. 1987).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Haanio, 16 P.3d 246 (Haw. 2001). “On April 23, 1997, Petitioner was charged by way of complaint with one count of robbery in the first degree, HRS § 708-840(1)(a) (1993), [2] of Gilbert Kamoku.”
State v. Mendonca, 711 P.2d 731 (Haw. 1985). “Before trial, Mendonca moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that State improperly indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (i) and should have indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(a). Mendonca asserted that State, by indicting him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) instead of…”
State v. Kekona, 886 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1994).
State v. Carlton., 455 P.3d 356 (Haw. 2019).
State v. Ah Choy, 780 P.2d 1097 (Haw. 1989).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(b) — 8 cases
State v. Arceo, 928 P.2d 843 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Torres. ICA s.d.o., filed 05/23/2018, 142 Haw. 355., 439 P.3d 234 (Haw. 2019). “1 HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (2014) provides the following: (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: .”
State v. Israel, 890 P.2d 303 (Haw. 1995).
State v. Mendonca, 711 P.2d 731 (Haw. 1985). “Before trial, Mendonca moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that State improperly indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (i) and should have indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(a). Mendonca asserted that State, by indicting him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) instead of…”
Garringer v. State, 909 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1996).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(b)(i) — 21 cases
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Arlt, 833 P.2d 902 (Haw. App. 1992).
State v. Mendonca, 711 P.2d 731 (Haw. 1985). “Before trial, Mendonca moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that State improperly indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (i) and should have indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(a). Mendonca asserted that State, by indicting him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) instead of…”
State v. Torres. ICA s.d.o., filed 05/23/2018, 142 Haw. 355., 439 P.3d 234 (Haw. 2019). “1 HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (2014) provides the following: (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: .”
State v. Maugaotega, 114 P.3d 905 (Haw. 2005). “2003); (3) robbery in the first degree (Count III), in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) and/or (ii) (1993 & Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(b)(i)(2014) — 1 case
State v. Stan, 484 P.3d 185 (Haw. App. 2021).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(b)(ii) — 23 cases
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997). “In those jurisdictions whose robbery statutes, like the predecessor to HRS § 708-840, [6] codify the common-law definition of robbery, the victim's awareness of the theft has been held to be a necessary predicate to robbery based on either the requirement that the actual taking…”
Birano v. State., 426 P.3d 387 (Haw. 2018).
State v. Maugaotega, 114 P.3d 905 (Haw. 2005). “2003); (3) robbery in the first degree (Count III), in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) and/or (ii) (1993 & Supp.”
State v. Jess, 184 P.3d 133 (Haw. 2008).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(2) — 12 cases
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Halemanu, 650 P.2d 587 (Haw. App. 1982). “" Commentary to HRS §§ 708-840 and -841. Under prior Hawaii law, robbery was defined as the "`stealing of a thing from *598 the person of another or from his custody or presence, by force or putting him in fear.”
State v. Torres. ICA s.d.o., filed 05/23/2018, 142 Haw. 355., 439 P.3d 234 (Haw. 2019). “1 HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (2014) provides the following: (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: .”
State v. Harper, 620 P.2d 1087 (Haw. App. 1980).
State v. Herrera, 629 P.2d 626 (Haw. 1981).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(3) — 1 case
State v. Ah Choy, 780 P.2d 1097 (Haw. 1989).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(b)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Halemanu, 650 P.2d 587 (Haw. App. 1982). “" Commentary to HRS §§ 708-840 and -841. Under prior Hawaii law, robbery was defined as the "`stealing of a thing from *598 the person of another or from his custody or presence, by force or putting him in fear.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Haanio, 16 P.3d 246 (Haw. 2001). “On April 23, 1997, Petitioner was charged by way of complaint with one count of robbery in the first degree, HRS § 708-840(1)(a) (1993), [2] of Gilbert Kamoku.”
State v. Edwards, 916 P.2d 703 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Kekona, 886 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1994).
State v. Stanley, 592 P.2d 422 (Haw. 1979).
State v. Santiago., 319 P.3d 272 (Haw. 2013).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(l)(b) — 5 cases
Garringer v. State, 909 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Harper, 620 P.2d 1087 (Haw. App. 1980).
State v. Sua, 987 P.2d 959 (Haw. 1999).
Brooks v. State, 552 A.2d 872 (Md. 1989).
State v. Rabago, 81 P.3d 1151 (Haw. 2003).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(l)(b)(i) — 16 cases
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Mendonca, 711 P.2d 731 (Haw. 1985). “Before trial, Mendonca moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that State improperly indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (i) and should have indicted him under HRS § 708-840(1)(a). Mendonca asserted that State, by indicting him under HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) instead of…”
State v. Hoey, 881 P.2d 504 (Haw. 1994). “(3) Robbery in the first degree is a class A felony. HRS § 708-840 (1985 & Supp.”
State v. Walton., 324 P.3d 876 (Haw. 2014).
State v. Ah Choy, 780 P.2d 1097 (Haw. 1989).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(l)(b)(ii) — 23 cases
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002). “5 (1993), [1] robbery in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840 (1993), [2] and prohibited place to keep firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6 (Supp.”
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997). “In those jurisdictions whose robbery statutes, like the predecessor to HRS § 708-840, [6] codify the common-law definition of robbery, the victim's awareness of the theft has been held to be a necessary predicate to robbery based on either the requirement that the actual taking…”
State v. Vinge, 916 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1996). “We further note that under HRS § 701-109(l)(d) (1993), robbery in the first degree (HRS § 708-840 (1993)) is not a specific instance of the general conduct of burglary in the first degree (HRS § 708-810 (1993)).”
State v. Masaniai, 628 P.2d 1018 (Haw. 1981).
State v. Hoey, 881 P.2d 504 (Haw. 1994). “(3) Robbery in the first degree is a class A felony. HRS § 708-840 (1985 & Supp.”
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.