## Facts

- Henry A.K. Kaimimoku (Father) was charged with abuse of a family or household member under HRS § 709-906 after using physical force against his 17-year-old daughter (Daughter).
- On the morning of February 13, 1991, Father cared for his three-month-old grandson for several hours and became frustrated.
- When Mother and Daughter returned home, Father yelled and used profanity at Mother; Daughter intervened and repeatedly used profanities toward Father, disobeying his order to stop swearing.
- During a heated confrontation, Mother attempted to separate Father and Daughter; Daughter ran outside asking Mother to call the police, and Mother did so.
- Father followed Daughter down the road and struck her: Daughter testified to open-hand slaps to her face and punches to her shoulders.
- Responding police observed no significant visible injuries; Daughter reported pain, and later accounts described a scratch, a bruise, and pain of unknown duration.
- Father admitted striking Daughter but claimed the force was intended as discipline for her profanity, disobedience, and disrespect, invoking the parental-discipline justification in HRS § 703-309(1).

## Issues

1. Whether Father’s use of force against Daughter was justified parental discipline under HRS § 703-309(1).
2. Whether, once the justification was fairly raised, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Father’s conduct fell outside HRS § 703-309(1) so as to sustain a conviction under HRS § 709-906.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the family court’s conviction.
- The court held that, on the record presented, Father’s conduct fell within HRS § 703-309(1) as a matter of law.
- Because evidence supported the parental-discipline justification, the State had the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to do so.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRS § 703-309(1), a parent may use force on a minor when and to the extent the parent reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or promote the minor’s welfare, subject to statutory limits barring serious harm or substantial risk of such harm.
- The justification requires both a subjective belief in the need for discipline and objective reasonableness under the circumstances.
- Once a defendant introduces evidence supporting a justification defense, the prosecution must disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A trial court’s general credibility findings do not substitute for proof that the force used was unreasonable, unnecessary, or crossed the statute’s harm/risk limits.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the abuse conviction because the parental-discipline justification was supported by the evidence and the State did not negate beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used—though physical—was reasonably believed necessary for discipline and did not create the level of serious harm or risk prohibited by HRS § 703-309(1).


State v. Kaimimoku, 9 Haw. App. 345, 841 P.2d 1076 (Haw. Ct. App. 1992)