§708-893 Use of a computer in the
commission of a separate crime. (1) [Repeal
and reenactment on July 1, 2027. L 2024, c 239, §4.] A person commits
the offense of use of a computer in the commission of a separate crime if the
person knowingly uses a computer to identify, select, solicit, persuade,
coerce, entice, induce, procure, pursue, surveil, contact, harass, annoy, or
alarm the victim or intended victim of the following offenses:
(a) Section 707-726, relating to custodial
interference in the first degree;
(b) Section 707-727, relating to custodial
interference in the second degree;
(c) Section 707-731, relating to sexual assault in
the second degree;
(d) Section 707-732, relating to sexual assault in
the third degree;
(e) Section 707-733, relating to sexual assault in
the fourth degree;
(f) Section 707-751, relating to promoting child
abuse in the second degree;
(g) Section 711-1106, relating to harassment;
(h) Section 711-1106.4, relating to aggravated
harassment by stalking;
(i) Section 711-1106.5, relating to harassment by
stalking;
(j) Section 711-1110.9, violation of privacy in the
first degree;
(k) Section 711-1111, violation of privacy in the
second degree; or
(l) Section 712-1215, relating to promoting
pornography for minors.
(2) Use of a computer in the commission of a
separate crime is an offense one class or grade, as the case may be, greater
than the offense facilitated. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a
conviction under this section shall not merge with a conviction for the
separate crime. [L 2001, c 33, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 141, §1; am L 2012, c
192, §1; am L 2016, c 231, §42; am L 2021, c 184, §2; am L 2024, c 239, §1]
Note
The 2012 amendment is not intended to interfere with First
Amendment rights of free speech and expression of any person affected. L 2012,
c 192, §3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case:
State v. Oki, 548 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2024).
State v. Oki, 548 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2024).
· cites it 24× “” Subsection (2) of HRS § 708-893 then provided and still provides that the “[u]se of a computer in the commission of a separate crime is an offense one class or grade .”
State v. Oki (Haw. App. 2020).
· cites it 46× “6 HRS § 708-893 (2014) provides, in relevant part: §708-893 Use of a computer in the commission of a separate crime.”
State v. Loo, 543 P.3d 1093 (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “5(1) (2014), and Use of a Computer in the Commission of a Separate Crime Relating to Harassment by Stalking, in violation of HRS § 708-893(1)(h) (Supp. 2016). 1 The 1 The Honorable Randal G.”
State v. Calucag, 224 P.3d 456 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “07-1-0015 with: Count I, Use of a Computer in the Commission of a Separate Crime, in violation of HRS § 708-893(1)(a) & (2) (Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-893(1) — 1 case
State v. Oki (Haw. App. 2020).
“6 HRS § 708-893 (2014) provides, in relevant part: §708-893 Use of a computer in the commission of a separate crime.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-893(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Oki, 548 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2024).
“” Subsection (2) of HRS § 708-893 then provided and still provides that the “[u]se of a computer in the commission of a separate crime is an offense one class or grade .”
State v. Oki (Haw. App. 2020).
“6 HRS § 708-893 (2014) provides, in relevant part: §708-893 Use of a computer in the commission of a separate crime.”
State v. Calucag, 224 P.3d 456 (Haw. App. 2010).
“07-1-0015 with: Count I, Use of a Computer in the Commission of a Separate Crime, in violation of HRS § 708-893(1)(a) & (2) (Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-893(1)(h) — 1 case
State v. Loo, 543 P.3d 1093 (Haw. App. 2024).
“5(1) (2014), and Use of a Computer in the Commission of a Separate Crime Relating to Harassment by Stalking, in violation of HRS § 708-893(1)(h) (Supp. 2016). 1 The 1 The Honorable Randal G.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-893(2) — 1 case
State v. Oki (Haw. App. 2020).
“6 HRS § 708-893 (2014) provides, in relevant part: §708-893 Use of a computer in the commission of a separate crime.”
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.