§710-1071 Intimidating a witness. (1)
A person commits the offense of intimidating a witness if he uses force upon or
a threat directed to a witness or a person he believes is about to be called as
a witness in any official proceeding, with intent to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to avoid legal process
summoning him to testify; or
(c) Induce that person to absent himself from an
official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned.
(2) "Threat" as used in this section
means any threat proscribed by section 707-764(1).
(3) Intimidating a witness is a class C
felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1980, c 267, §2]
COMMENTARY ON §710-1071
The potential for harm involved in witness intimidation is
essentially similar to that involved in the offense of bribery of a witness,
e.g., the undermining of the integrity of an extremely important part of the
judicial process. The definition of the offense also parallels that of bribery
of a witness, and the sanctions are identical. Note, however, that only the
person who directs the force or threat against the witness is guilty of a
crime. "Threat," as used in this section is any threat proscribed by
the offense of criminal coercion under §707-724. To some extent, it would seem
that the section on criminal coercion might suffice to deal with witness
intimidation, but since the intimidation of a witness carries the additional
harm of interfering with an official proceeding, it seems appropriate to impose
a more severe sanction for the present offense.
Previous Hawaii law had no provisions dealing specifically
with the offense of witness intimidation.
Case Notes
Terroristic threatening not a lesser included offense of
intimidating a witness within the meaning of §701-109(4)(a); multiple
conviction of terroristic threatening and intimidating a witness not barred by
§701-109(4)(c). 75 H. 517, 865 P.2d 157 (1994).
Sufficient evidence that defendant directed threats to person
whom defendant believed was about to be called as a witness where defendant
phoned person soon after explicit warning from police officer that such conduct
could be inferred as intimidating a witness. 82 H. 419 (App.), 922 P.2d 1032
(1996).
Sufficient evidence that defendant intended to influence
person's testimony by making threatening statements during phone call. 82 H.
419 (App.), 922 P.2d 1032 (1996).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case:
State v. Pudiquet, 922 P.2d 1032 (Haw. App. 1996).
State v. Pudiquet, 922 P.2d 1032 (Haw. App. 1996).
· cites it 19× “Consistent with the MPC commentary, the commentary to HRS § 710-1071 explains that the statute’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the judicial process from the harm caused by witness intimidation by *425 imposing severe sanctions for the offense.”
State v. Gomes, 177 P.3d 928 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 10× “HRS § 710-1071 (1)(a) prohibits (1) the use of “force upon or a threat, (2) directed to a witness or a person [the defendant] believes is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding, (3) *228 with the intent to influence the testimony of that witness or person.”
State v. Alston, 865 P.2d 157 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 4× “On the contrary, Alston argues that he could not have intimidated a witness under HRS § 710-1071 without necessarily having committed a terroristic threatening under HRS § 707-715.”
State v. Jumila, 950 P.2d 1201 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 4× “…in the Second Degree, HRS § 710-1021; Intimidating a Correctional Worker, HRS § 710-1031; Intimidating a Witness, HRS § 710-1071; Retaliating Against a Witness, HRS § 710-1072.2; Intimidating a Juror, HRS § 710-1074; Retaliating Against a Juror, HRS § 710-1075.5;…”
State v. Auld., 361 P.3d 471 (Haw. 2015).
“8 relating to identity theft in the third degree; section 708-852 relating to forgery in the second degree; section 708-854 relating to criminal possession of a forgery device; section 708-875 relating to trademark counterfeiting; section 710-1071 relating to intimidating a…”
State v. Chong, 648 P.2d 1112 (Haw. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “, Witness Intimidation or Tampering pursuant to HRS §§ 710-1071, 710-1072 (1976, as amended).”
State v. Akana, 876 P.2d 1331 (Haw. App. 1994).
“The Defendant was charged with Intimidating a Witness, a Class C felony, under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 710-1071(l)(a) (1985). Thereafter, the State and the Defendant entered into a plea bargain.”
Williamson v. State of Hawaii (D. Haw. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff also asserts claims under Hawaii Revised Statutes, including under HRS § 710-1071 (“Intimidating a witness”) and HRS § 378 et seq.”
Chatman v. State, 226 P.3d 522 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “02-1-0011; and (2) Bribery of a Witness, in violation of HRS § 710-1070(1) (a), (b), and (c) (1993); Intimidating a Witness, in violation of HRS § 710-1071 (1) (a), (b), and (c) (1993); and Extortion in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS §§ 707-766(1) (b) (1993) and 707-764…”
State v. Hilario (Haw. 2016).
“2 (2014) (Count 3), Intimidating a Witness in violation of HRS “Section 710-1071(1)(a/b/c) [sic]” (2014) (Count 4), and Bribery of a Witness in violation of HRS “Section 710-1070(1)(a/b/c) [sic]” (2014) (Count 5).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1071(1) — 2 cases
State v. Pudiquet, 922 P.2d 1032 (Haw. App. 1996).
“Consistent with the MPC commentary, the commentary to HRS § 710-1071 explains that the statute’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the judicial process from the harm caused by witness intimidation by *425 imposing severe sanctions for the offense.”
State v. Hilario (Haw. 2016).
“2 (2014) (Count 3), Intimidating a Witness in violation of HRS “Section 710-1071(1)(a/b/c) [sic]” (2014) (Count 4), and Bribery of a Witness in violation of HRS “Section 710-1070(1)(a/b/c) [sic]” (2014) (Count 5).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1071(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gomes, 177 P.3d 928 (Haw. 2008).
“HRS § 710-1071 (1)(a) prohibits (1) the use of “force upon or a threat, (2) directed to a witness or a person [the defendant] believes is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding, (3) *228 with the intent to influence the testimony of that witness or person.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1071(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Alston, 865 P.2d 157 (Haw. 1994).
“On the contrary, Alston argues that he could not have intimidated a witness under HRS § 710-1071 without necessarily having committed a terroristic threatening under HRS § 707-715.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1071(2) — 1 case
State v. Pudiquet, 922 P.2d 1032 (Haw. App. 1996).
“Consistent with the MPC commentary, the commentary to HRS § 710-1071 explains that the statute’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the judicial process from the harm caused by witness intimidation by *425 imposing severe sanctions for the offense.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 710-1071(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Pudiquet, 922 P.2d 1032 (Haw. App. 1996).
“Consistent with the MPC commentary, the commentary to HRS § 710-1071 explains that the statute’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the judicial process from the harm caused by witness intimidation by *425 imposing severe sanctions for the offense.”
State v. Akana, 876 P.2d 1331 (Haw. App. 1994).
“The Defendant was charged with Intimidating a Witness, a Class C felony, under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 710-1071(l)(a) (1985). Thereafter, the State and the Defendant entered into a plea bargain.”
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.