reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
HI Rev Stat § 704-401 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-401 Evidence of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect admissible when relevant to state of mind. §704-401 Commentary:

  §704-401 Evidence of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect admissible when relevant to state of mind. Evidence that the defendant was affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind that is required to establish an element of the offense. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 230, §5] COMMENTARY ON §704-401  This section accords to evidence of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect its full evidentiary significance. It assures "admissibility [of such evidence] co-extensive with its relevancy to prove or disprove a material state of mind."[1] While some jurisdictions have refused to admit medical evidence of the defendant's mental state other than on the issue of the complete foreclosure of defendant's responsibility, this all-or-nothing approach is totally inconsistent with the concept which accords certain states of mind legal significance. Any evidence relevant to prove or disprove the requisite state of mind ought to be admissible.  In its most recent case in this area, Hawaii has adopted the approach taken in this section. In a case involving a charge of murder (which under the previous definition requires malice, premeditation, and deliberation), where the defendant had raised the issues of "insanity" and lack of "malice", evidence of a defendant's mental disease, disorder, or defect was held to be admissible on the issue of the defendant's ability to harbor malice, even if the defendant was considered "sane" and responsible.[2] Furthermore, the defendant was entitled to have the jury specifically instructed on this point.3 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §704-401  Act 230, Session Laws 2006, amended this section by making technical nonsubstantive amendments. __________  §704-401 Commentary: 1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 193 (1955). 2. State v. Moeller, 50 Haw. 110, 433 P.2d 136 (1967). 3. Id.
HI Rev Stat § 704-403 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-403 Physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding fitness to proceed. §704-403 Commentary:

  §704-403 Physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding fitness to proceed. No person who as a result of a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against the person or to assist in the person's own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993] COMMENTARY ON §704-403  The section sets forth the universally accepted position in Anglo-American law that a defendant cannot be proceeded against (with the exception of being charged) unless the defendant has the capacity to understand the proceedings against the defendant and assist in the defendant's own defense. The Code deliberately avoids terms such as "the then present insanity"[1] and focuses on those factors which call for a suspension of the proceedings: (1) lack of capacity to understand the proceedings, or (2) lack of capacity to assist in the defense.  Previous Hawaii law is substantially in accord with this section except that the statutory language used vague, unfocused phrases such as "the then present insanity or mental irresponsibility of the accused," and "the then existing... mental irresponsibility."[2] However, in actual application the trial courts have focused on the capacity of the defendant to understand the proceedings and to assist in the defense.3 Law Journals and Reviews  Fitness to Proceed: Compassion or Prejudice? II HBJ, no. 13, at 135 (1998). Case Notes  Facts did not support a finding that petitioner was mentally incompetent at relevant times. 79 H. 118 (App.), 899 P.2d 401 (1995).  Cited: 60 H. 17, 586 P.2d 1028 (1978); 134 H. 308, 340 P.3d 440 (2014). __________  §704-403 Commentary: 1. See H.R.S. § §711-91 and 711-92. 2. Id. 3. See State v. Wong, 47 Haw. 361, 365, 389 P.2d 439, 442 (1964).
HI Rev Stat § 704-405 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-405 Determination of fitness to proceed. §704-405 Commentary:

  §704-405 Determination of fitness to proceed. When the defendant's fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court. If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 704-404, the court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. When the report is received in evidence upon such hearing, the party who contests the finding thereof shall have the right to summon and to cross-examine the persons who joined in the report or assisted in the examination and to offer evidence upon the issue. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §704-405  This section departs from the prior law[1] and provides that the issue of the defendant's fitness to proceed will be determined solely by the court. In this the Code follows the Model Penal Code.[2] The fitness of the defendant to proceed is only tangentially related to the defendant's condition at the time of the conduct alleged and the defendant's responsibility for that conduct. Moreover, there might be several periodic hearings on the question of the defendant's fitness to be proceeded against. It seems unwise to afford the defendant a jury determination in each instance.  The Code also allows the court to make a determination of fitness to proceed on the basis of an uncontested report; which is in accord with prior law in felony cases.3 The last sentence of this section allows a limited exception to the hearsay rule so that the report of an examining expert may be received in evidence without the necessity of calling the expert to the stand. The exception is not inconsistent with the purpose of the hearsay rule because the defendant is assured of the right to summon and to cross-examine the reporting examiner if the defendant wishes. Law Journals and Reviews  Fitness to Proceed: Compassion or Prejudice? II HBJ, no. 13, at 135 (1998). Case Notes  Consideration of the sanity commission report is permissible use of hearsay. 63 H. 186, 623 P.2d 881 (1981).  Where defendant's counsel declined to call and cross-examine the doctors who prepared the sanity report, counsel waived defendant's right of confrontation. 63 H. 186, 623 P.2d 881 (1981).  Cited: 60 H. 17, 586 P.2d 1028 (1978). __________  §704-405 Commentary: 1. H.R.S. §711-91. 2. M.P.C. §4.06. 3. See H.R.S. §711-91, which reads in part: "If the court deems such report conclusive of the then present insanity... of the accused, the court may allow a nolle prosequi to be entered in the case, and in such case shall forthwith, without other or further proceedings, adjudge the accused to be insane and commit him to the state hospital until discharged as provided by law...."
HI Rev Stat § 704-409 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-409 Access to defendant by examiners of defendant's choice.

  §704-409 Access to defendant by examiners of defendant's choice. When, notwithstanding the report filed pursuant to section 704-404, the defendant wishes to be examined by one or more qualified physicians or other experts of the defendant's own choice, such examiner or examiners shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of such examination. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993] COMMENTARY ON §704-409  The section makes it clear that a defendant in custody pending determination of the defendant's fitness to proceed or the defendant's penal responsibility shall be entitled to examination by medical experts of the defendant's own choice notwithstanding rules or regulations of the prison or hospital or other facility in which the defendant is held. Final determination of the question of reasonable access should reside with the court and not with the warden or hospital administrator.
HI Rev Stat § 704-410.5 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-410.5 Conditional release; duration limited in nonfelony cases.

  §704-410.5 Conditional release; duration limited in nonfelony cases. For any defendant granted conditional release in a nonfelony case pursuant to section 704-411(1)(b), 704-412, 704-414, or 704-415, the period of conditional release shall not exceed one year. [L 2016, c 231, pt of §3] COMMENTARY ON §704-410.5  Act 231, Session Laws 2016, added this section to implement recommendations made by the Penal Code Review Committee convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution No. 155, S.D. 1 (2015).
HI Rev Stat § 704-416.5 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-416.5 Supervision of person on conditional release.

  §704-416.5 Supervision of person on conditional release. (1) Any person hospitalized under this chapter who is subsequently placed on conditional release shall be subject to the supervision of a probation officer until such time as that supervision is terminated by order of the court.  (2) The probation officer shall report, as the court may order, whether the conditionally released person is complying with the conditions of the release. [L 1983, c 69, §1; am L 2006, c 230, §15] COMMENTARY ON §704-416.5  Act 69, Session Laws 1983, added this section to this chapter so that a defendant who is acquitted and committed pursuant to this chapter shall be supervised by the adult probation division upon that person's conditional release. The legislature felt that supervision is necessary for the safety and welfare of the individual as well as the community. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 719, House Standing Committee Report No. 506.  Act 230, Session Laws 2006, made technical nonsubstantive amendments to this section.
HI Rev Stat § 704-417 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-417 Use of out-of-state institutions.

  §704-417 Use of out-of-state institutions. The term "appropriate institution" includes any institution within or without this State to which the defendant may be eligible for admission and treatment for physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §704-417  This section is intended to permit the court (acting through the director of health) or the director of health to utilize institutions outside the jurisdiction of the State.
HI Rev Stat § 704-419 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-419 REPEALED.

  §704-419 REPEALED. L 1980, c 306, §2.
HI Rev Stat § 704-420 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|704. Penal Responsibility and Fitness to Proceed|704-420 Examination reports; provided to director of health.

  §704-420 Examination reports; provided to director of health. Copies of all examination reports made pursuant to sections 704-404, 704-406, 704-411, and 704-414 shall be provided to the director of health. [L 2016, c 231, pt of §3] COMMENTARY ON §704-420  Act 231, Session Laws 2016, added this section to implement recommendations made by the Penal Code Review Committee convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution No. 155, S.D. 1 (2015).
HI Rev Stat § 705-501 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|705. Inchoate Crimes|705-501 Criminal attempt; attempting to aid another. §705-501 Commentary:

  §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.
HI Rev Stat § 705-502 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|705. Inchoate Crimes|705-502 Grading of criminal attempt. §705-502 Commentary:

  §705-502 Grading of criminal attempt. An attempt to commit a crime is an offense of the same class and grade as the most serious offense which is attempted. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §705-502  For purposes of sentencing, the Code equates the criminal attempt with the most serious substantive offense attempted. Only in the case where the crime attempted is murder does the Code authorize a different sentence for the substantive offense than for the attempt. This is because §706-606 provides a special sentence for murder. Attempted murder is treated as an ordinary class A felony.  The dispositions[1] (suspension of sentence, probation, imprisonment, etc.) authorized by chapter 706 of the Code are intended to provide primarily a flexible and corrective process. The court's order should be determined by the need for correction as demonstrated by the anti-social disposition (propensities) of the defendant. This being the case, there is generally no difference in the sanctions which ought to be available to the court when a crime is attempted but not consummated. However, where the offense attempted is murder, the unique sentence authorized for that crime is not imposed. Instead, the attempt is treated as any other class A felony. Because §706-606 requires mandatory imprisonment, possibly for life, there is room to economize on sentencing for attempted murder. The various modes of disposition available for a class A felony ought to suffice for correctional needs.  Under previous Hawaii law, the sentencing of attempts is structurally similar to that provided in the Code, except that Hawaii law formerly provided a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years,[2] whereas the Code, in making the most serious attempt a class A felony, provides for an extended term in cases presenting aggravating circumstances.3 Case Notes  Attempted murder is treated as ordinary class A felony. 57 H. 418, 558 P.2d 1012 (1976). __________  §705-502 Commentary: 1. The word "disposition" is used in the Penal Code and its commentary with two different meanings. In chapter 705 and elsewhere the commentary refers to the actor's disposition; the word is used in this context to refer to the actor's anti-social propensities. Chapter 706 deals with the disposition of convicted defendants. That chapter deals with procedures to be followed and available sanctions upon conviction (i.e., suspension of sentence or imposition of a sentence or imposition of a sentence ordering probation, fine, or imprisonment). 2. H.R.S. §702-5. 3. Cf. chapter 706, Disposition of Convicted Defendants.
HI Rev Stat § 705-512 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|705. Inchoate Crimes|705-512 Grading of criminal solicitation. §705-512 Commentary:

  §705-512 Grading of criminal solicitation. Criminal solicitation is an offense one class or grade, as the case may be, less than the offense solicited; provided that criminal solicitation to commit murder in any degree is a class A felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1997, c 149, §2] Cross References  Disposition of convicted defendants, see chapter 706. COMMENTARY ON §705-512  This section provides for grading of criminal solicitations. Solicitations are offenses one class or grade, as the case may be, less than the offense solicited. For example, solicitation of a class A felony is a class B felony; solicitation of a class C felony is a misdemeanor; solicitation of a petty misdemeanor is a violation. This reflects the position that generally solicitations, because of the reluctance of the defendant himself to engage in the specified conduct or cause the specified result, and the dependence of the conduct or result on the will of another, should be treated as a lower order of penal liability than commission of corresponding substantive offenses.  In the past Hawaii law equated criminal solicitation with attempt in imposing penalty.[1] One who was guilty of solicitation ("instigation") under Hawaii law was "subject to the penalty of an attempt to commit the offense."[2] Hence, as in the previous Hawaii law of attempt, solicitation carries a maximum sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, with the option of a fine if the penalty for the completed substantive offense is a term of less than twenty years' imprisonment. The Code, in reducing the penalty for all criminal solicitation one class or grade from that for the completed substantive offense, departs from past law and provides for a more rational relationship between the sentence for soliciting a substantive offense and the sentence for that offense.3 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §705-512  Act 149, Session Laws 1997, amended this section to provide that criminal solicitation to commit murder in any degree is a class A felony. The legislature found that the offense of murder warranted punishment under the Code sufficient to fit the grave consequences of the crime, and that persons who are found guilty of conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder should also be penalized to a similarly serious degree. The legislature recognized that two Hawaii Supreme Court opinions, State v. Kaakimaka (84 H. 280, 933 P.2d 617 (1997)) and State v. Soto (84 H. 229, 933 P.2d 66 (1997)), concluded that conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder are class C felonies. The legislature acknowledged that the decisions had led to incongruous sentencing under the sentencing guidelines of the Code. Conspiracy and solicitation are ordinarily designated the same level of felony offense as the underlying crime, or at the very least, one grade lower. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 1600. __________  §705-512 Commentary: 1. H.R.S. §702-11. 2. Id. 3. Cf. M.P.C. §5.05(1).
HI Rev Stat § 705-523 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code|705. Inchoate Crimes|705-523 Immunity, irresponsibility, or incapacity of a party to criminal conspiracy. §705-523 Commentary:

  §705-523 Immunity, irresponsibility, or incapacity of a party to criminal conspiracy. (1) A person shall not be liable under section 705-520 for criminal conspiracy if under sections 702-224(1) and (2) and 702-225(1) he would not be legally accountable for the conduct of the other person.  (2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under section 705-520 that a person with whom the defendant conspires could not be guilty of committing the crime because:  (a) He is, by definition of the offense, legally incapable in an individual capacity of committing the offense;  (b) He is penally irresponsible or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction for the commission of the crime;  (c) He is unaware of the criminal nature of the conduct in question or of the defendant's criminal intent; or  (d) He does not have the state of mind sufficient for the commission of the offense in question.  (3) It is not a defense to a prosecution under section 705-520 that the defendant is, by definition of the offense, legally incapable in an individual capacity of committing the offense that is the object of the conspiracy. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §705-523  The problems arising out of possible immunity, irresponsibility, or incapacity of a person to a criminal conspiracy are dealt with essentially in the commentary on §705-511 (dealing with immunity, irresponsibility, or incapacity of a party to criminal solicitation). This section is intended to resolve these problems should they arise in a conspiracy context.  This section has no counterpart in previous Hawaii law. Other jurisdictions have held that there can be no conspiracy in such situations because a conspiracy, as an agreement of two or more persons, requires at least two guilty conspirators.[1] In keeping with the unilateral approach to conspiracy of this Code, however, it is evident that the danger of the conspiracy arising from collective joint action remains essentially the same whether or not one of the conspirators cannot be successfully prosecuted. Moreover, one of the principal reasons for imposing penal liability in the area of inchoate crimes, i.e., the unequivocal presence of a strong intent to commit a crime, is present regardless of the co-conspirator's innocence, incapacity, or irresponsibility.2 __________  §705-523 Commentary: 1. Prop. Mich. Rev. Cr. Code, comments at 102. 2. Id.; see also commentary on §705-520.