LegalFix

702-201 "Voluntary act" defined.

HI Rev Stat § 702-201 (2019) (N/A)
Copy with citation
Copy as parenthetical citation

§702-201 "Voluntary act" defined. "Voluntary act" means a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]

COMMENTARY ON §702-201

This section defines "voluntary act" in general terms relying chiefly on the characteristic of voluntariness--the effort and determination of the defendant. The Code's formulation is intended to exclude from the category of voluntary action such bodily movements as (a) reflex or convulsions, (b) bodily movements during unconsciousness and sleep, (c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion, and (d) any other bodily movement that is not a product of the effort and determination of the defendant, either conscious or habitual.

The exclusion of involuntary action from the scope of penal liability must be viewed in the light of the provisions of chapter 704 on physical disease, disorder, and defect which exclude penal responsibility. In that chapter acquittal is conditioned on submission to treatment or commitment tailored to the condition which excludes responsibility. The Code attempts to provide "therapy or ... custodial commitment"[1] for those dangerous individuals who are unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law because of some condition which would be difficult to regard as a "mental disease or defect" under orthodox treatment of penal irresponsibility. At the same time, because treatment is flexible and tailored to the condition in question, it does not bear "harshly on the individual whose condition is nonrecurrent."[2]

No prior Hawaii statutory provision dealt with the issue of voluntariness of acts (other than in its relation to duress or mental disease, disorder, or defect), however, a recent case tends to support the position of the Code.3

__________

§702-201 Commentary:

1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 119 (1955).

2. Id. at 121.

3. See State v. Matsuda, 50 Haw. 128, 432 P.2d 888 (1967).

LegalFix

Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.

LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.

The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.

You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.

The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.

Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

We have updated our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures.