SECTION 1. The legislature finds that the tragic death in 2024 of local rancher Cranston Duke Pia brought critical attention to an issue unequally disadvantaging agricultural workers. Pia was fatally shot in a confrontation with an intruder, whose dogs were attacking Pia's cattle. The defense team for the accused suspect claimed that the act was in self-defense, asserting that Pia had fired a weapon first. This allegation adds a complex layer to the legal and ethical evaluation of the incident.

This event was not only a personal tragedy and loss for Pia's family and community but also raised broader questions about the risks agricultural workers face, particularly in remote and isolated locations. This incident served as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in the agricultural sector and ignited debates about the sufficiency of Hawaii's current legal protections for individuals defending their property and lives under similar circumstances.

The legislature also finds that stand your ground laws have been the focus of extensive debate across the United States, reflecting a complex intersection of legal principles, societal values, and public policy concerns. These laws, which eliminate the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense in public spaces, have been enacted in twenty-six states. Stand your ground laws are often framed as measures to uphold individual rights and enhance personal security. However, their implementation has raised critical questions about public safety, the preservation of life, and the nuanced social and racial dynamics that influence how individuals perceive and respond to threats.

The legislature further recognizes the need for a balanced approach that upholds Hawaii's commitment to public safety and the protection of life while addressing the unique challenges faced by agricultural workers. Rooted in Hawaii's history is the law of the splintered paddle, enacted by King Kamehameha I, which ensured the protection and safety of all citizens while warning against acts of harm or violence. This enduring principle reminds us of the importance of safeguarding both individuals and their livelihoods, especially in times of vulnerability. This balance necessitates an informed and nuanced discussion about self-defense laws, grounded in empirical evidence and inclusive of the perspectives of those directly affected. By engaging in this discussion, Hawaii can ensure that its legal framework continues to reflect its values while adapting to the evolving needs of its communities.

Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to safeguard individuals in the agricultural community and their property by amending the State's self-defense laws to deprioritize the duty to retreat in certain circumstances, allowing actors with a legal right to stand their ground on agricultural land to exercise deadly force in justifiable contexts.

SECTION 2. This Act shall be known as the "Cranston Duke Pia Act".

SECTION 3. Chapter 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§703- Use of deadly force in self-protection on agricultural land. The actor is not obliged to retreat, has the right to stand the actor's ground, and may justifiably use deadly force in self-protection if the actor is not engaged in criminal activity and is on agricultural land where the actor has a right to be; provided that the actor was not the original aggressor."

SECTION 4. Section 703-304, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended to read as follows:

"§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting [~~himself~~] oneself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect [~~himself~~] oneself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as [he] the actor believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act [~~which he~~] that the actor has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.

(4) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on [~~his~~] the occupier or possessor's behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property[~~, except~~]; provided that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of [~~his~~] the public officer's duties [or], a person lawfully assisting [~~him~~] the public officer therein, or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or

(ii) The actor believes that [~~such~~] force is necessary to protect [~~himself~~] oneself against death or serious bodily injury.

(5) [~~The~~] Notwithstanding any provisions in section 703- to the contrary, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:

(a) The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against [~~himself~~] oneself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that [he] the actor can avoid the necessity of using [~~such~~] force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that [he] the actor abstain from any action [~~which he~~] that the actor has no duty to take[~~, except that:~~]; provided that:

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from [~~his~~] the actor's dwelling or place of work, unless [he] the actor was the initial aggressor or is assailed in [~~his~~] the actor's place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of [~~his~~] the public officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in [~~his~~] the public officer's assistance or [~~a person justified in using force~~] in making an arrest or preventing an escape, is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform [~~his~~] the public officer or other justified person's duty, effect the arrest, or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.

(6) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as [he] the actor knows that [he] the actor safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime."

SECTION 5. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.

SECTION 6. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 7. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

INTRODUCED BY:	_____________________________

THE SENATE	S.B. NO.	1248
THIRTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2025
STATE OF HAWAII