§708-842 Robbery; "in the course of
committing a theft". An act shall be deemed "in the course of
committing a theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle" if it
occurs in an attempt to commit theft or non-consensual taking of a motor
vehicle, in the commission of theft or non-consensual taking of a motor
vehicle, or in the flight after the attempt or commission. [L 1972, c 9, pt of
§1; am L 2006, c 230, §43]
COMMENTARY ON §708-842
The nature and operation of this section is concisely
explained by the Model Penal Code:
This provision is unusual only insofar
as it makes classification of robbery depend in part on behavior after the
theft might be said to have been accomplished. The thief's willingness to use
force against those who would restrain him in flight strongly suggests that he
would have employed it to effect the theft had there been need for it. No
rule-of-thumb is proposed to delimit the time and space of "flight,"
which should be interpreted in accordance with the rationale. The concept of "fresh
pursuit" will be helpful in suggesting realistic bounds between the
occasion of the theft and a later occasion when the escaped thief is
apprehended.[1]
Previous Hawaii statutory law failed to provide a standard
for the determination of the duration of the "theft" aspect of a
robbery--a standard which is needed in order to determine when the employment
of force or threatened force converts the "theft" into a "robbery."
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §708-842
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, established motor vehicle theft
as part of the offenses of robbery in the first and second degrees. House
Standing Committee Report No. 665-06. Act 230 amended this section to conform
to the amendments made to the offenses of robbery in the first and second
degrees.
Case Notes
Theft and attempted theft, regardless of degree, are included
offenses of first degree robbery. 81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996).
Force was not used "in the course of committing theft"
where force used was while defendant was returning stolen liquor bottle to
store owner. 9 H. App. 263, 833 P.2d 902 (1992).
__________
§708-842 Commentary:
1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 11, comments at 70 (1960).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case:
State v. Haanio, 16 P.3d 246 (Haw. 2001).
State v. Haanio, 16 P.3d 246 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 16× “Regarding Petitioner's contention that there was a lack of substantial evidence that he had committed theft, the ICA held that the court did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal because there was evidence that Petitioner was in the "course of…”
State v. Cordeiro, 56 P.3d 692 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 8× “" HRS § 708-842 (1993).... It is clear, therefore, that under HRS § 708-840, force or intimidation need not be used in the actual taking of the property to constitute robbery.”
State v. Mitsuda, 947 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Under HRS § 708-840, use of force or intimidation "in the course of committing a theft" is the element that distinguishes robbery from theft. "An act shall be deemed `in the course of committing a theft' if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft, in the commission of theft, or…”
State v. Correa, 706 P.2d 1321 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “5 Under HRS § 708-842, an act is “in the course of committing theft” as that phrase is used in HRS§ 708-840(1), if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft.”
State v. Vinge, 916 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “) HRS § 708-842 (1993) provides that “[a]n act shall be deemed ‘in the course of committing theft’ if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft, in the commission of theft or in the flight after the attempt or commission.”
State v. Arlt, 833 P.2d 902 (Haw. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, the legislature enacted HRS § 708-842, which defines the phrase “in the course of committing a theft” for purposes of a robbery offense, as follows: Robbery; “in the course of committing a theft.”
State v. Manipon, 634 P.2d 598 (Haw. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 708-842 defines the term “in the course of committing a theft” for robbery as follows: § 708-842 Robbery; “in the course of committing a theft.”
State v. Clemmer (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “the offense of robbery in the second degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: (a) The person uses force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of…”
State v. Paulino, 222 P.3d 465 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “) HRS § 708-842 (1993) defines "in the course of committing a theft" as occurring "in an attempt to commit theft, in the commission of theft, or in the flight after the attempt or 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.