Opinion ID: 1224111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harassment is a crime against a person.

Text: HRS § 708-810 provides that a person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree if the person intentionally enters or remains unlawfully in a building, with intent to commit therein a crime against a person or against property rights . . . The trial court instructed the jury on the offenses of assault and harassment as crimes against a person sufficient to uphold a conviction for burglary. Mahoe objected to the instruction on the offense of harassment. The basis of Mahoe's objection is that harassment is not a crime against a person within the meaning of the burglary statute. HRS § 711-1106 defines harassment as: A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, that person: (a) Strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact[.] [6] HRS Chapter 711 is entitled Offenses against Public Order. Mahoe argues that a conviction for burglary should only be predicated on offenses enumerated in HRS Chapters 707 (entitled Offenses Against the Person) or Chapter 708 (entitled Offenses Against Property Rights). HRS § 708-810 does not define, by its terms or in commentary, the universe of crimes against a person or property rights that can form the foundation of a burglary conviction. We have previously held that intentionally entering or intentionally remaining unlawfully ... with the intent to commit any crime against a person or property rights constitutes burglary. State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 315, 660 P.2d 39, 41 (1983) (emphasis added). In State v. Lau, 78 Hawai`i 54, 890 P.2d 291 (1995), we rejected a claim that driving under the influence was a traffic offense and not a criminal offense because the offense was codified in HRS Chapter 291, entitled Traffic Violations. Lau is instructive here because it stands for the proposition that the elements of the offense determine how to characterize it. The rationale in Lau is dispositive of Mahoe's claim that the title of the chapter should be mechanically applied to determine what constitutes a crime against a person. Harassment is clearly a crime against a person. The statutory definition states that a person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, that person: (a) strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact. HRS § 711-1106 (emphases added). Because the broad language of the burglary statute does not evidence an intent to confine crimes against a person to those enumerated in Chapter 707, and harassment is a crime against a person, we hold that a conviction for burglary may be predicated on the offense of harassment.