§702-207 Specified state of mind applies to all elements. When the definition of an offense specifies the state of mind sufficient for the commission of that offense, without distinguishing among the elements thereof, the specified state of mind shall apply to all elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §702-207
This section makes it clear that the specified state of mind requirement applies to all elements of an offense. This resolves a latent ambiguity found in many penal statutes. If, for example, a statute were to make it an offense to intentionally or knowingly break and enter the dwelling of another, it is probably clear that the specified state of mind applies to entering as well as breaking, however it should also be made clear that it applies to the attendant circumstances "dwelling of another."
The phrase "unless a contrary purpose plainly appears" is intended to allow the courts to avoid an improper result when the language of a statute fails to indicate that the specified state of mind applies to less than all elements and legislative history indicates that this was intended.
Prior Hawaii law did not recognize the principle that culpability must be proven as to each element of an offense. This stems in part from the fact that the concept of "elements of an offense" had not been fully explored. A case involving a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor stated by way of dictum that culpability with respect to the age of the victim did not have to be proven.[1] To the extent that this section modifies the previous law, it merely rejects those few instances where absolute penal liability was imposed indirectly.
__________
§702-207 Commentary:
1. Territory v. Delos Santos, 42 Haw. 102 (1957).
Section: Previous 702-200 702-201 702-202 702-203 702-204 702-205 702-206 702-207 702-208 702-209 702-210 702-211 702-212 702-213 702-214 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016