Harassment offenses, see §§711-1106 and 711-1106.5.

Classification of proceedings, see RDC rule 1.

Because only the prosecuting attorney is vested with the authority to enforce the criminal provisions of subsection (h), respondent, as a private party, could not have brought an enforcement action under subsection (h). 92 H. 614, 994 P.2d 546.

Subsection (g) does not provide a statutory basis to grant a prevailing party an award of attorney's fees in a civil contempt proceeding to enforce an injunction issued pursuant to this section. 92 H. 614, 994 P.2d 546.

Although complainant was a minor at the time complainant's parents obtained the injunction on behalf of themselves and complainant, an injunction issued under this section remains effective until it expires or is dissolved or modified by court order; thus, though complainant had reached the age of majority, complainant was still under the protection of the injunction. 97 H. 505, 40 P.3d 907.

Default is not procedurally available when a respondent is ready to introduce evidence regarding the issuance of a temporary restraining order or an injunction, or to controvert allegations of harassment under this section. 101 H. 167, 64 P.3d 948.

Trial court erred in granting continuance on hearing on harassment petition beyond fifteen-day period as section requires hearing on the merits to be held within fifteen days of the filing of the petition; however, no prejudice to petitioner as court extended temporary restraining order prohibiting respondent from harassing petitioner for the period of the continuance. 91 H. 131 (App.), 980 P.2d 1005.

As subsection (h) provides that there can be no criminal conviction unless "[a] knowing or intentional violation of a restraining order or injunction" has occurred, harassment under subsection (a)(1) is not turned into a "strict liability" offense; thus, no violation of due process under subsection (a)(1). 92 H. 312 (App.), 990 P.2d 1194.

No equal protection violation for disparate treatment of persons enjoined under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) as those enjoined under subsection (a)(1) are not subject to a suspect classification vis a vis those enjoined under subsection (a)(2) and the legislature could reasonably omit a state-of-mind element in the more perilous cases under subsection (a)(1) but require an intentional or knowing course of conduct in subsection (a)(2) cases. 92 H. 312 (App.), 990 P.2d 1194.

Subsection (a)(1) not unconstitutionally overbroad as it imposes no criminal liability nor places any burden on the reduced punishment or complete defense provisions of the penal code. 92 H. 312 (App.), 990 P.2d 1194.

Harassment under paragraph (a)(2) is conduct that involves systematic and continuous intimidation that stops short of assault or threats and cannot be controlled effectively by resort to criminal processes and penalties. 92 H. 330 (App.), 991 P.2d 840.

Where trial court did not apply clear and convincing standard of proof on complainant as required by this section, applied a subjective rather than objective reasonable person standard in evaluating whether defendant's conduct caused complainant emotional distress, and deprived defendant of right to due process under U.S. and Hawaii constitutions, court erred by denying defendant's motion for reconsideration of injunction order. 92 H. 330 (App.), 991 P.2d 840.