§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).