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
— 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…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(1)(b) — 8 cases
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…”
— 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. 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. 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
— 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…”
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(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.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(3) — 1 case
— 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.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-840(l)(b) — 5 cases
— 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.”
— 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. 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.