§701-106  Territorial applicability. 
(1)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted
under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person's own conduct
or the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable if:



(a) Either the conduct or the result which is an
element of the offense occurs within this State; or



(b) Conduct occurring outside the State is sufficient
under the law of this State to constitute an attempt to commit an offense
within the State; or



(c) Conduct occurring outside the State is sufficient
under the law of this State to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense
within the State and an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy occurs
within the State; or



(d) Conduct occurring within the State establishes
complicity in the commission of, or an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to
commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the
law of this State; or



(e) The offense consists of the omission, while
within or outside this State to perform a legal duty imposed by the law of this
State with respect to domicile, residence, or a relationship to a person,
thing, or transaction in the State; or



(f) The offense is based on a statute of this State
which expressly prohibits conduct outside the State, when the conduct bears a
reasonable relation to a legitimate interest of this State and the actor knows
that the actor's conduct is likely to affect that interest.



(2)  Subsection (1)(a) does not apply when a
specified result, or conduct creating a risk of such a result, is an element of
an offense and the result occurs, or is intended or is likely to occur, only in
another jurisdiction where the conduct charged would not constitute an offense,
unless a legislative purpose plainly appears to declare that the conduct
constitutes an offense regardless of the place of the result.



(3)  Subsection (1)(a) does not apply when a
particular result is an element of an offense and the result is caused by
conduct occurring outside the State which conduct would not constitute an
offense if the result had occurred there, unless the actor intentionally or
knowingly caused the result within the State.



(4)  When the offense involves a homicide,
either the death of the victim or the bodily impact causing death constitutes a
"result", within the meaning of subsection (1)(a).  If the body of a
homicide victim is found within the State, it is prima facie evidence that the
result occurred within the State.



(5)  This State includes the land and water and
the air space about the land and water with respect to which the State has
legislative jurisdiction. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]



 



COMMENTARY ON §701-106



 



  The intent of this section is to expand the penal
jurisdiction of Hawaii's courts to the fullest extent possible, within the
limits of fundamental fairness and constitutionality.  (It does not govern the
jurisdiction of individual courts.)  The section therefore makes the penal law
of this State applicable to conduct or results occurring within the State; to
conduct within the State which establishes complicity in, or constitutes an
attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another
jurisdiction which is also an offense under Hawaii law; and to a penal omission
to perform a duty imposed by Hawaii law.  Certain kinds of conduct occurring
outside the State are also covered:  conduct outside the State which is
sufficient under this Code to constitute an attempt to commit an offense under
the laws of this State, conduct outside the State which is sufficient under
this Code to constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime within the State
(provided that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs within the
State), and conduct outside the State expressly prohibited by Hawaii law
"when the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest of
this State and the actor knows that the actor's conduct is likely to affect
that interest."



  Subsections (2) and (3) provide exceptions to the coverage of
subsection (1).  Subsection (2) excepts conduct which causes, or creates the
risk of causing, a result in another jurisdiction where the conduct does not
constitute an offense in the other jurisdiction, unless the statute clearly
indicates a purpose to make the conduct penal regardless of the place of the
result.  Subsection (3) relieves the actor of criminality for a result
occurring in this State if it is a result of conduct outside the State which
would not have been an offense there, provided that the actor did not
intentionally or knowingly cause the result within this State.  Both
subsections recognize that culpability does not exist in the situations
described, and recognize that the actor probably intended to abide by the law
of the other jurisdiction.



  Subsection (4) provides a special rule for homicide cases,
giving the State jurisdiction either when death occurs within the State or when
the bodily impact causing death occurs within the State.  It also establishes a
rule that evidence that the body of a homicide victim is found within the State
is prima facie evidence that either death or bodily impact causing death
occurred within the State.



  Subsection (5) is intended to encompass the entire
territorial area over which the State has legislative jurisdiction.



  The territorial applicability of the previous Hawaii penal
law was defined by statute.[1]  The penal liability of a person outside the
State of Hawaii occurred:



Where an act is done or a fact of effect takes place within the
State, affecting the welfare of the State, or the personal safety, the property
or rights of any of its inhabitants, being within the State, any person
causing, procuring, machinating or promoting the same, or instigating another
thereto, or aiding or assisting therein, is amenable to the laws of the State,
whether he be at the time within or without its limits.[2]



Offenses partly within the State were also covered:



Where the commission of an offense commenced without the State,
is consummated within it, the offender is subject to be prosecuted and punished
therefor in the State.[3]



  The case law pertaining to territorial applicability upholds
and supports the above statutes.  In Territory v. Hart,[4] it was held that the
trial court in Hawaii had jurisdiction over a defendant who cabled from
Honolulu to New York directing a broker in New York to sell certain stock which
was in the defendant's control for a client, the proceeds of which the
defendant had embezzled.  The controlling factor in the court's decision was
that the crime had been commenced within Hawaii.  In The King v. Chock Hoon,[5]
it was held that the defendant was guilty of embezzlement within the Kingdom
where the defendant received X's money for the purpose of delivering that money
to X's mother in China, and having failed to deliver the money, refused to
return the money to X after returning to the Kingdom from China.



 



Case Notes



 



  For purposes of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction, telephone call constitutes conduct in the jurisdiction in which
the call is received.  72 H. 591, 825 P.2d 1062.



  Circuit court had jurisdiction under paragraph (1)(d) over
defendant where defendant's call to Honolulu police department from mainland
constituted overt act in Hawaii and co-defendant committed one act in furtherance
of conspiracy by meeting in Honolulu with undercover agents to discuss drug
transaction.  83 H. 187, 925 P.2d 357.



  The State's criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas
within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii.  105 H. 319 (App.),
97 P.3d 395.



 



__________



§701-106 Commentary:



 



1.  H.R.S. §§701-5, 701-6.



 



2.  Id. §701-5 (emphasis added).



 



3.  Id. §701-6 (emphasis added).



 



4.  24 Haw. 844 (1918).



 



5.  5 Haw. 372 (1885).