Opinion ID: 1407256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecution Under Penal Code Rather than Prior Statute

Text: Because the continuing offense involved conduct commencing before the effective date of the Penal Code, defendant maintains that HRS § 701-101(1) mandated her prosecution under prior existing law. HRS § 701-101 has not been construed by this court and defendant misinterprets its provisions. Section 701-101(1) provides in relevant part that an offense is committed before the effective date if any of the elements of the offense occurred before that date. We read this language to simply mean that all the elements necessary to prove a crime charged under the Hawaii Penal Code must be shown to have occurred after its effective date. In the case of a continuing offense, what may have transpired previously is immaterial if each essential element of the crime can be established for a given period subsequent to January 1, 1973. To prove first degree theft here, the State was only obliged to demonstrate that defendant failed to correct a false impression she had created [5] and obtained property of the State with intent to deprive it of the property, [6] the value of which exceeded $200. [7] Defendant contends that certain elements of the crime, i.e., her marriage and the commencement of her employment and that of her husband, occurred before January 1, 1973. Although these events preceded January 1, 1973, they were not essential elements of theft. While they served to alter defendant's status relative to the valid receipt of assistance payments, the deceptive conduct that was an essential element of the offense occurred when defendant failed to disclose them in her semi-annual statement. And, of course, the deception recurred whenever the necessary statements were subsequently filed. Thus, the State clearly established that defendant fostered a false impression in order to obtain assistance payments after January 1, 1973. Although defendant received monies she was not entitled to prior and subsequent to January 1, 1973, the payments received in the latter period amounted to substantially more than $200. There is no question that each element required to prove first degree theft was established for the period subsequent to January 1, 1973.