Rafael then told Corpuz to leave and they ran away. TT2 can be an offense included in TT1. The question is whether there was a rational basis in the record to acquit Corpuz of TT1 and convict him of TT2. Corpuz's interpretation is that a closed knife used or intended to be used only to make a terroristic threat is not a dangerous instrument because it is not known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. Our interpretation is that, in the terroristic threatening context, an instrument is a dangerous instrument, as defined in HRS 707-700, when it is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury when used in the manner it is threatened to be used.
Legislative history supports our interpretation.
More severe penalties should be instituted when . . . There is a likelihood that in the event the victim resisted to the demands or threats of the offender, the offender may elect to utilize the weapon. Rep. No. 1382, in 1979 House Journal, at 1480. The legislature recently included butterfly knives in the category of deadly or dangerous weapons for purposes of the concealed weapons statute, HRS 134-5. James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the brief for plaintiff-appellee.