Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 846
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 846-51 (2026)

  Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[PART IV.]  HATE CRIME REPORTING

 

     §846-51  Definitions.  As used in this part, the following terms have the following meanings:

     "Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

     "Hate crime" means any criminal act in which the perpetrator intentionally selected a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that was the object of a crime, because of hostility toward the actual or perceived race, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation of any person.

     "Hate crime data" means information, incident reports, records, and statistics relating to hate crimes, collected by the attorney general.

     "Incident report" means an account of occurrence of a hate crime received or collected by the attorney general.

     "Sexual orientation" means:

     (1)  Having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality;

     (2)  Having a history of any one or more of these preferences; or

     (3)  Being identified with any one or more of these preferences. [L 2001, c 240, pt of §2; am L 2003, c 33, §§1, 3]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2007–2007 · leading case: Andrews v. State, 930 A.2d 846 (Del. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrews v. State, 930 A.2d 846 (Del. 2007). “The seven states with “intentional selection” (besides Delaware) are: Hawaii (Haw.Rev.Stat. § 846-51 (2003)), New York ( N.”
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.