HB385 amends Hawaii’s assault statutes to expand and clarify criminal penalties when the victim is an older adult. The bill raises the age threshold for the elder-victim assault enhancements from 60 years old to 65 years old in both first-degree assault and second-degree assault. It also removes the requirement that the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, the victim’s age for these enhanced offenses.
Under the bill, a person who intentionally or knowingly causes substantial bodily injury to a person age 65 or older commits first-degree assault, and a person who intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a person age 65 or older commits second-degree assault, with strict liability as to the victim’s age. The measure leaves the underlying felony classifications unchanged: first-degree assault remains a class B felony and second-degree assault remains a class C felony. The act would take effect upon approval and would not disturb rights, penalties, or proceedings that arose before the effective date.
Impact
HB385 would amend sections 707-710 and 707-711 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by redefining when assault offenses are aggravated by the victim’s age. The practical effect is to narrow the elder-victim enhancement to persons 65 and older, while also making age a strict-liability circumstance rather than an element requiring proof of the defendant’s knowledge. This could make prosecutions easier in qualifying cases and reduce disputes over whether the defendant knew the victim’s age.
Sentiment
The available bill materials suggest a generally supportive, law-enforcement-oriented purpose. The bill is identified as part of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, indicating it was introduced to strengthen criminal enforcement protections for older victims. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the available record, but the framing of the measure is clearly protective and punitive toward assaults on older adults.
Contention
The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the increase of the protected age from 60 to 65 and the elimination of the knowledge requirement regarding the victim’s age. Supporters would likely view these changes as aligning the statute with a more standard definition of “elder” and making the law easier to enforce. Potential concerns, if raised, would center on strict liability for age and whether narrowing the protected class from 60 to 65 could reduce protections for some older adults who were covered under prior law.