§708-842 Robbery; "in the course of committing a theft". An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing a theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle, in the commission of theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle, or in the flight after the attempt or commission. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 230, §43]
COMMENTARY ON §708-842
The nature and operation of this section is concisely explained by the Model Penal Code:
This provision is unusual only insofar as it makes classification of robbery depend in part on behavior after the theft might be said to have been accomplished. The thief's willingness to use force against those who would restrain him in flight strongly suggests that he would have employed it to effect the theft had there been need for it. No rule-of-thumb is proposed to delimit the time and space of "flight," which should be interpreted in accordance with the rationale. The concept of "fresh pursuit" will be helpful in suggesting realistic bounds between the occasion of the theft and a later occasion when the escaped thief is apprehended.1
Previous Hawaii statutory law failed to provide a standard for the determination of the duration of the "theft" aspect of a robbery--a standard which is needed in order to determine when the employment of force or threatened force converts the "theft" into a "robbery."
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §708-842
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, established motor vehicle theft as part of the offenses of robbery in the first and second degrees. House Standing Committee Report No. 665-06. Act 230 amended this section to conform to the amendments made to the offenses of robbery in the first and second degrees.
Case Notes
Theft and attempted theft, regardless of degree, are included offenses of first degree robbery. 81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996).
Force was not used "in the course of committing theft" where force used was while defendant was returning stolen liquor bottle to store owner. 9 H. App. 263, 833 P.2d 902 (1992).
__________
§708-842 Commentary:
1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 11, comments at 70 (1960).
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.