PART IV.
BRIBERY
§710-1040 Bribery. (1) A person
commits the offense of bribery if:
(a) The person confers, or offers or agrees to
confer, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary benefit upon a public servant
with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment,
exercise of discretion, or other action in the public servant's official
capacity; or
(b) While a public servant, the person solicits,
accepts, or agrees to accept, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary benefit
with the intent that the person's vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of
discretion, or other action as a public servant will thereby be influenced.
(2) It is a defense to a prosecution under
subsection (1) that the accused conferred or agreed to confer the pecuniary
benefit as a result of extortion or coercion.
(3) For purposes of this section, "public
servant" includes in addition to persons who occupy the position of public
servant as defined in section [710-1000], persons who have been elected,
appointed, or designated to become a public servant although not yet occupying
that position.
(4) Bribery is a class B felony. A person
convicted of violating this section, notwithstanding any law to the contrary,
shall not be eligible for a deferred acceptance of guilty plea or nolo
contendere plea under chapter 853. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993; am L
2006, c 230, §47]
COMMENTARY ON §710-1040
In most cases, bribery subverts the efficient functioning of
the government to the benefit of a private individual, or a limited class of
individuals. Efficiency is undermined because those choices and decisions
which are the job of public servants cease to be made solely on the basis of
merit, and hence the chance that the alternative most beneficial to the
functioning of the government, or to the people collectively, is decreased.
The pervasive and far-reaching nature of this offense against public administration
warrants the class C felony sanction.
Moreover, both parties to bribery are obviously to be
considered culpable, one no less than the other. The victim of this offense is
usually the public in general, although in particular instances (particularly
competitive bid and judicial or quasi-judicial situations) individuals may
suffer more directly. Subsection (1)(a) covers the offeror of the bribe, while
subsection (1)(b) covers the offeree.
The defense provided for in subsection (2) is intended to
allow the actor who commits bribery as a result of extortion or coercion to
have the opportunity to raise these facts as a defense. As with all defenses
in this Code which are not made affirmative, once the issue is raised, the
prosecution must negate it beyond a reasonable doubt. It is questionable
whether the sections on duress (§702-231) or choice of evils (§703-302)
adequately cover this situation. Therefore, the defense is specifically provided
for by this subsection.
Previous Hawaii law recognized bribery as a criminal offense,
but treated bribe giving as a lesser offense than bribe receiving,[1] which
carried approximately the same penalty as that provided by the Code. The Code
equalizes the penalties. In defining the offense the Code requires that the
actor have the intent to influence or the intent to be influenced. Previous
law required that, in case of bribery receiving, the actor act "corruptly"
and with an "understanding." Under the Code, intent is the relevant
state of mind. The Code requires that the actor solicit, accept, or agree to
accept the pecuniary benefit with intent that the actor will thereby be
influenced. As in the inchoate offense of conspiracy, the Code takes the
unilateral approach to penal liability: the offer may be feigned, or made
innocently, but if the receiver intended to be influenced thereby liability
attaches, notwithstanding an absence of an agreement or understanding.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §710-1040
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, amended bribery from a class C to
a class B felony, and provided that a person convicted of bribery shall not be
eligible for a deferred acceptance of guilty plea or nolo contendere plea under
chapter 853.
Case Notes
Plaintiffs failed to establish genuine issue of fact whether
five million dollar gift to city and county of Honolulu was a bribe; plaintiffs
raised genuine issue of fact whether campaign contributions were bribes. 906
F. Supp. 1377 (1995).
__________
§710-1040 Commentary:
1. Compare H.R.S. §725-1 with H.R.S. §725-2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1982–2009 · leading case:
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 710-1040(1) provides in relevant part: A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
State v. Kuhia, 96 P.3d 590 (Haw. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “The HRS § 710-1000(15) definition of “public servant” applies to all HRS Chapter 710 offenses, including bribery under HRS § 710-1040 (1993). That section provides in relevant part: § 710-1040 Bribery.”
Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 906 F. Supp. 1377 (D. Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “§ 710-1040(l)(b). It is likewise illegal for a person to: (1) confer, or offer or agree to confer (directly or indirectly); (2) pecuniary benefit; (3) upon a public servant; (4) with the intent to influence the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or…”
State v. Chong, 648 P.2d 1112 (Haw. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Section 710-1040 (l)(b) states in part: (1) A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
State v. Okubo, 682 P.2d 79 (Haw. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Okubo and Yamamoto were indicted in January of 1981 for bribing two policemen in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes *80 (HRS) § 710-1040(1)(a). Evidence against them was obtained through the warrantless taping and transmission of approximately forty face-to-face and telephone…”
Kupau v. United States Dep't of Labor, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Haw. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Hawaii Revised Statute § 710-1040 defines bribery in similar language, stating that “[a] person commits the offense of bribery if .”
State v. Okubo, 651 P.2d 494 (Haw. App. 1982).
“Defendants-Appellees Roy Okubo and George Yamamoto (defendants) were indicted respectively for 7 and 19 counts of bribery in violation of § 710-1040(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) (1976).”
State v. Murray, 753 P.2d 806 (Haw. 1988).
“offer or agree to confer, directly or indirectly, a pecuniary benefit, to wit, University of Hawaii football game tickets, upon Kyle Nobriga, a public servant, to wit, a police officer, with the intent to influence said public servant’s opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion,…”
State v. Kutzen, 696 P.2d 351 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 2× “This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of bribery (HRS § 710-1040(l)(a)). The parties waived oral argument.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1040(1) — 1 case
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
“HRS § 710-1040(1) provides in relevant part: A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1040(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Okubo, 682 P.2d 79 (Haw. 1984).
“Okubo and Yamamoto were indicted in January of 1981 for bribing two policemen in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes *80 (HRS) § 710-1040(1)(a). Evidence against them was obtained through the warrantless taping and transmission of approximately forty face-to-face and telephone…”
State v. Okubo, 651 P.2d 494 (Haw. App. 1982).
“Defendants-Appellees Roy Okubo and George Yamamoto (defendants) were indicted respectively for 7 and 19 counts of bribery in violation of § 710-1040(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) (1976).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1040(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
“HRS § 710-1040(1) provides in relevant part: A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1040(l)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Okubo, 682 P.2d 79 (Haw. 1984).
“Okubo and Yamamoto were indicted in January of 1981 for bribing two policemen in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes *80 (HRS) § 710-1040(1)(a). Evidence against them was obtained through the warrantless taping and transmission of approximately forty face-to-face and telephone…”
Kupau v. United States Dep't of Labor, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Haw. 2009).
“Hawaii Revised Statute § 710-1040 defines bribery in similar language, stating that “[a] person commits the offense of bribery if .”
State v. Murray, 753 P.2d 806 (Haw. 1988).
“offer or agree to confer, directly or indirectly, a pecuniary benefit, to wit, University of Hawaii football game tickets, upon Kyle Nobriga, a public servant, to wit, a police officer, with the intent to influence said public servant’s opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion,…”
State v. Kutzen, 696 P.2d 351 (Haw. 1985).
“This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of bribery (HRS § 710-1040(l)(a)). The parties waived oral argument.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1040(l)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Kahapea, 141 P.3d 440 (Haw. 2006).
“HRS § 710-1040(1) provides in relevant part: A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 906 F. Supp. 1377 (D. Haw. 1995).
“§ 710-1040(l)(b). It is likewise illegal for a person to: (1) confer, or offer or agree to confer (directly or indirectly); (2) pecuniary benefit; (3) upon a public servant; (4) with the intent to influence the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or…”
State v. Kuhia, 96 P.3d 590 (Haw. App. 2004).
“The HRS § 710-1000(15) definition of “public servant” applies to all HRS Chapter 710 offenses, including bribery under HRS § 710-1040 (1993). That section provides in relevant part: § 710-1040 Bribery.”
State v. Chong, 648 P.2d 1112 (Haw. App. 1982).
“Section 710-1040 (l)(b) states in part: (1) A person commits the offense of bribery if: .”
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.