§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 defendan
311 words·~1 min read·
/hi/chapter-702/702-201A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
§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).