§705-501  Criminal attempt; attempting to
aid another.  (1)  A person who engages in conduct intended to aid another
to commit a crime is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime, although the
crime is not committed or attempted by the other person, provided his conduct
would establish his complicity under sections 702-222 through 702-226 if the
crime were committed or attempted by the other person.



(2)  It is not a defense to a prosecution under
this section that under the circumstances it was impossible for the defendant
to aid the other person in the commission of the offense, provided he could
have done so had the circumstances been as he believed them to be. [L 1972, c
9, pt of §1]



 



COMMENTARY ON §705-501



 



  When a defendant attempts to aid another in the commission of
a crime and the other person attempts or commits the substantive offense, the
defendant is liable, under the complicity provisions,[1] for the conduct of the
other person.  However, where the other person does not attempt or commit the crime,
the complicity sections and ordinary attempt definitions do not cover the
situation.  Subsection (1) provides that the defendant will be guilty of
attempt to commit the crime if complicity would have resulted had the other
person attempted or committed the substantive offense.  For example:  A knows
that B plans to kill C; B is unaware of A's knowledge and does not seek A's
assistance; A prevents a warning from reaching C which would otherwise have
reached him; B changes his mind before engaging in any conduct; A is guilty of
attempted murder.



  In one other respect the complicity sections and the attempt
sections operate jointly.  If a defendant engages in some conduct intended to
aid another but does not complete the course of conduct sufficient for the
purpose, the question then posed is whether the more limited conduct would
result in complicity under §§702-222 through 226.  Section 702-222 provides
that complicity may rest on attempt to aid another.  In determining whether the
defendant's limited conduct is sufficient to constitute an attempt to aid, the
standard of substantiality as set forth in §705-500 should be followed.  If A,
in the example stated above, was apprehended before he was able to prevent a
message of warning from reaching C, the question of A's liability would turn on
the substantiality of his action, i.e., whether his conduct was strongly
corroborative of his criminal intent.



  Subsection (2) is intended to eliminate the defense of
impossibility.  In the example stated above, A would be guilty notwithstanding
the fact, e.g., that C died from natural causes before the warning possibly
could have reached him.



  This section represents an addition to Hawaii law.



 



__________



§705-501 Commentary:



 



1.  Cf. §§702-222 to 226.