Court Opinion

ID: 9633991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:11:19.212329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:51.748143
License: Public Domain

KIRIMITSU, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with sections B and C of the majority opinion. However, I respectfully dissent from section A of the opinion for the reasons set forth below. I believe the dis-positive issue is whether the district court properly rejected Cavness’ affirmative defense of a mistaken belief that he had a legal right to remain on the property. Although the district court referred to Cavness’ defense as a mistake of fact, I view his defense as a mistaken belief of law. Regardless of the reasons or basis for Cavness’ mistaken belief of law, neither Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 702-218 (1993) nor HRS § 702-220 (1993) provides a statutory defense for Cavness.
The legislative history of HRS §§ 702-218 and 702-220 indicates that the Hawai'i legislature intended, inter alia, to abolish the ignorance or mistake of law defense. By recognizing Cavness’ defense as a mistake of fact permissible under HRS § 702-218, the majority is acting contrary to legislative intent.
HRS § 701-105 (1993) provides: “The commentary accompanying this [Hawai'i Penal Code] shall be published and may be used as an aid in understanding the provisions of this Code, but not as evidence of legislative intent.” (Emphasis added.) The Hawai'i legislature adopted this commentary primarily from the Judicial Council of Hawai'i’s proposed draft of the Hawai'i Penal Code (1970).1
*468Accordingly, the commentary to the Ha-wai'i Penal Code is not evidence of legislative intent. The commentary indicates, at best, the intent of the judicial council who drafted the proposed penal code and not the intent of the legislature who later amended the proposed code before codifying it.2 See, e.g., Judicial Council of Hawai'i, Hawai'i Penal Code (Proposed Draft) 40 (1970); Commentary to HRS § 702-218 (1993).
For example, the proposed draft of HRS § 702-218 provided originally:
In any prosecution for an offense, it is a defense that the accused engaged in the prohibited conduct under ignorance or mistake of fact or law if:
(1) the ignorance or mistake negatives the state of mind required to establish an element of the offense; or
(2) the law defining the offense or a law related thereto provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
Hawai'i Penal Code (Proposed Draft) at 40 (emphasis added). When the legislature enacted HRS § 702-218, it adopted verbatim: (1) the above proposed text except for “or law” that was intentionally deleted, see Hse. Spee.Comm.Rep. No. 2, in 1972 House Journal, at 1065 and Sen.Spec.Comm.Rep, No. 6, in 1972 Senate Journal, at 684; and (2) the commentary to the above proposed draft, see Hawai'i Penal Code (Proposed Draft) at 40. While the commentary to HRS § 702-218 may indicate the judicial council’s intent behind the proposed draft to HRS § 702-218, the commentary does not reflect the subsequent amendment codified in HRS § 702-218 (1993) and, therefore, is misleading.
Before adopting the proposed draft of HRS §§ 702-218 and -220, the legislature:
amend[ed] Section 218 [as indicated above3] and ... delete[d] Section 220(1)[4] to eliminate ignorance or mistake of law as a defense in certain instances, thereby avoiding a major dilemma with respect to enforcement of provisions of this Code. The defenses of ignorance of the law afforded by Sections 218 and 220 would have been available, to a degree, under any given set of circumstances and as such would have constituted a major encumbrance to enforcement of the substance and spirit of the Code.
Hse.Conf.Comm.Rep. Nos. 1, 2, in 1972 House Journal, at 1035, 1041. See Sen. Conf.Comm.Rep. Nos. 1, 2, in 1972 Senate Journal, at 734, 741. By amending the proposed draft of HRS §§ 702-218 and -220, the legislature eliminated generally the ignorance or mistake of law defense in order that *469both sections better reflect the legal maxim, ignoranee of the law excuses nobody.5
Therefore, I would afñrm the conviction and the December 7,1992 Judgment because in my view the district court did not err in rejecting Cavness’ mistake of law defense.

. See HRS § 701-105 (1985) (providing that "[t]he commentary accompanying the Judicial *468Council of Hawai'i's proposed draft of the Hawai'i Penal Code (1970), as revised, shall be published and may be used as an aid in understanding the provisions of this Code, but not as evidence of legislative intent.” ) (Emphasis added.) The legislature later amended HRS § 701-105 by replacing the above emphasized text and with the words "this Code.” See 1986 Haw.Sess.Laws Act 314, § 2 at 594.

. As distinguished from the commentary, the supplemental commentary "attempts to explain the changes that were made by the Legislature to the Proposed Draft of the Hawai'i Penal Code (1970)[.]” (Emphasis added.) Commentary to HRS § 701-105 (1993). However, neither the regular nor supplemental commentary is or should be evidence of legislative intent.

. As opposed to the regular commentary, the supplemental commentary on HRS § 702-218 (1993) recognizes this amendment. Cf. Commentary to HRS § 702-218 (1993).

. The proposed draft of HRS § 702-220 provided:
In any prosecution, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the conduct or caused the result alleged under the belief that the conduct or result was not legally prohibited when:

(1) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the defendant and has not been reasonably made available to him, by publication or otherwise, prior to the conduct or result alleged; or

(2) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in:
(a) a statute or other enactment;
(b) a judicial decision, opinion, or judgment;
(c) an administrative order or administrative grant of permission; or
(d) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
Hawai'i Penal Code (Proposed Draft) at 41-42 (emphasis added).

. We note that, in State v. Marley, 54 Haw. 450, 476, 509 P.2d 1095, 1111 (1973), the Hawai'i Supreme Court stated that “[a] reasonable mistake of law is often a complete defense to the charges of criminality for an act when the mistake of law negatives a mental state which must be shown to establish a material element of the crime.” (Citations omitted.) However, Marley dealt with an offense that occurred on May 14, 1971, prior to the enactment of the Hawai'i Penal Code, effective January 1, 1973. See id. at 476, 509 P.2d at 1099; 1972 Haw.Sess.Laws Act 9, § 1 at 32. As a consequence of the enactment of the Hawai'i Penal Code, the Hawai'i legislature has restructured significantly the mistake of fact and mistake of law defenses in Hawai'i.