State v. Coyle
This text of 71 Haw. 165 (State v. Coyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[166]*166OPINION OF THE COURT BY
In these two cases, Defendant-Appellant John Deeter and Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Coyle each appeals from his conviction of the crime of Abuse of Family and Household Members, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906 (1985). Each had a non-jury trial, was charged and convicted only under HRS § 709-906. On appeal each contends that the judge’s finding that a mutual affray occurred is a defense to the crime. We disagree.
Although HRS § 707-712(2) (1985) on Third Degree Assault does provide a defense which mitigates that crime from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor when the assault is committed during a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent,1 no similar provision is made in HRS § 709-906, Abuse of Family and Household Members. Mutual affray, therefore, is not a defense to the crime of which Appellants were convicted, Abuse of Family and Household Members, HRS § 709-906.
We do not decide the contested issue of whether Third Degree Assault committed in a mutual affray, HRS § 707-712(2), is a lesser included offense of the charged Abuse of Family and Household Members, HRS § 709-906, because a decision on that issue is not relevant to a determination of the present cases. Being guilty of a lesser included offense is not a defense to a conviction of the greater offense. State v. Sneed, 68 Haw. 463, 464, 718 P.2d 280, 281 (1985).
The convictions are affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 Haw. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coyle-haw-1990.