## Facts

- Delbert L. Crouser lived with the complainant’s mother and acted in a parental role toward the complainant, a 14-year-old special-education student.
- The complainant was required to bring home a daily progress report signed by teachers; she altered the report after forgetting to obtain signatures.
- After discovering the alteration, Crouser confronted the complainant in her room and, according to her testimony, slapped her in the face, knocked her down, threw her face-down on a bed, restrained her with a knee on her back, pulled down her pants and underwear, and struck her bare buttocks.
- The complainant testified Crouser later returned with a plastic bat, again pulled down her clothing, and struck her on the buttocks, arm, thighs, and torso until the bat broke.
- The next day, school personnel observed extensive bruising on the complainant’s buttocks, arm, thigh, and torso; she had difficulty sitting.
- Crouser admitted spanking the complainant but claimed it was reasonable discipline; the complainant’s mother testified she did not view the punishment as excessive.
- After a bench trial, Crouser was convicted of abuse of a family or household member under HRS § 709-906.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding Crouser’s conduct was not justified as reasonable parental-type discipline under HRS § 703-309.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for abuse of a family or household member under HRS § 709-906.
3. Whether HRS § 703-309 is unconstitutional on vagueness and/or overbreadth grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the conviction.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that the force used exceeded permissible discipline under HRS § 703-309.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the elements of HRS § 709-906 beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenge, holding HRS § 703-309 is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad.

## Legal Principles

- HRS § 703-309 justifies parental or parental-like use of force to safeguard or promote a minor’s welfare only if the force is not designed to cause, and is not known to create a substantial risk of causing, death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress, or gross degradation.
- Whether force constitutes reasonable discipline is a fact-intensive determination based on the manner and degree of force and resulting injury; appellate review does not reweigh credibility where substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.
- Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution; the conviction stands if a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A criminal justification statute is not void for vagueness if, using common understanding and statutory context, it provides fair notice of prohibited conduct and constrains arbitrary enforcement; use of established terms describing serious harm can supply workable standards.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Crouser’s conviction, concluding that repeated blows with a plastic bat causing extensive bruising could be found to create a substantial risk of extreme pain and thus fall outside the statutory justification for parental-type discipline, and further holding that Hawaiʻi’s parental-discipline justification is constitutionally definite and not overbroad.


State v. Crouser, 911 P.2d 725 (Haw. 1996)