State v. Jones

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Jones

597 P.2d 210, 61 Haw. 135

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1979

DocketNO. 6567

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 597 P.2d 210 (State v. Jones) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Jones, 597 P.2d 210, 61 Haw. 135 (haw 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of carrying a deadly weapon, to wit, a shotgun, in violation of HRS 134-51 which provides:

“Any person not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle used or occupied by him, or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined not more than $250, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The defendant claims that a shotgun is not a “deadly or dangerous weapon” within the meaning of the statute. His contention is without merit, and his reliance upon State v. Rackle, 55 Haw. 531, 523 P.2d 299 (1974), is misplaced. A shotgun is a dangerous weapon per se. Cf. Id. “The instrument proscribed [by the statute] is one which was designed primarily as a weapon, or one which has been diverted from its normal use and prepared and modified for combat purposes.” State v. Giltner, 56 Haw. 374, 376, 537 P.2d 14, 16 (1975). A shotgun’s primary design and purpose is to inflict injury. And while a shotgun is normally used for hunting purposes, it has also been used to cause death or other bodily injury to human beings.

Affirmed.

*136 RichardS. Kawana, Deputy Public Defender on the briefs for defendant-appellant. Glenn M. Miyajima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney on the brief for plaintiff-appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of carrying a deadly weapon, to wit, a shotgun, in violation of HRS 134-51 which provides:

“Any person not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle used or occupied by him, or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined not more than $250, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The defendant claims that a shotgun is not a “deadly or dangerous weapon” within the meaning of the statute. His contention is without merit, and his reliance upon State v. Rackle, 55 Haw. 531, 523 P.2d 299 (1974), is misplaced. A shotgun is a dangerous weapon per se. Cf. Id. “The instrument proscribed [by the statute] is one which was designed primarily as a weapon, or one which has been diverted from its normal use and prepared and modified for combat purposes.” State v. Giltner, 56 Haw. 374, 376, 537 P.2d 14, 16 (1975). A shotgun’s primary design and purpose is to inflict injury. And while a shotgun is normally used for hunting purposes, it has also been used to cause death or other bodily injury to human beings.

Affirmed.

*136 RichardS. Kawana, Deputy Public Defender on the briefs for defendant-appellant. Glenn M. Miyajima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney on the brief for plaintiff-appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 P.2d 210, 61 Haw. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-haw-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack