Hawaii StatutesCHAPTER 626 - HAWAII RULES OF EVIDENCE
- §1 - RULE 100 COMMENTARY The purpose of this chapter is to codify the law of evidence, to promote informed judicial rulings on evidence points, and to achieve uniformity in the treatment of evidenc
- §1 - RULE 101 COMMENTARY This rule differs from Fed.
- §701-105 1976 - , which limits the effect of the penal code commentary because, as the commentary to that section points out, "of the strong judicial deference given legislative committee reports
- §1 - RULE 102 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §1 - RULE 103 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §53 2 - d ed. 197) hereinafter cited as McCormick.
- §1 - RULE 105 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §56. - As the Hawaii Supreme Court said in Holstein v.
- §328. - In contrast, judicial notice of legislative facts "occurs when a judge is faced with the task of creating law, by deciding upon the constitutional validity of a statute, or the interpreta
- §1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 - , and Hawaii Rev.
- §342. - One commentator has pointed out at least eight different meanings attributed to the term by the courts, Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumption, 52 Mich.
- §345. - The sole effect of a legal presumption, in this view, is to impose upon the party against whom it is directed the requirement of producing evidence adequate to sustain a finding of its nonexis
- §630-646 - , with modifications appropriate to the rules of law of this jurisdiction.
- §660-669 - , with modifications appropriate to the rules of law of this jurisdiction.
- §622-31 - , making a written finding of "presumed death" prima facie evidence of the death of the person named; §572-13(c), making a certified copy of a certificate of marriage prima facie e
- §712-1251 1976 - quot;The presence of a dangerous drug, harmful drug, or detrimental drug in a motor vehicle, other than a public omnibus, is prima facie evidence of knowing possession thereof by each
- §626-0001-0401
- §702-231 - and was, therefore, inadmissible under this rule.
- §185. - quot;Unfair prejudice," as the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed.
- §190. - McCormick also cautions against admission by "pigeonholing" rather than the careful exercise of discretion called for by this rule.
- §626-0001-0405
- §1 - RULE 406 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §1 - RULE 407 COMMENTARY This rule is similar to Fed.
- §1 - RULE 408 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- § 1160 - , excluding expressions of "sympathy or a general sense of benevolence.
- §1 - RULE 409 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §1 - RULE 410 COMMENTARY This rule is similar to Fed.
- §626-0001-0411
- §707-742 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1975, c 83, §1; am L 1977, c 109, §1).
- §911 - , the commentary to which states: "This section codifies the existing law that privileges are not recognized in the absence of statute.
- §346-10 - Supp.
- §626-0001-0503
- §1018 - , which is similar, points out: "There is no desirable end to be served by encouraging such communications.
- §621-20.5 1976 - , Supp.
- §1035 - through 1037.
- §621-18 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §53; am L 1927, c 164, §1; am L 1971, c 151, §1; am L 1972, c 104, §1(m)), and Hawaii Rev.
- §626-0001-0506
- §11-3 1976 - quot;This chapter shall apply to all elections, primary, special primary, general, special general, special, or county, held in the State.
- §626-0001-0508
- §940. - It derives directly from the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination assured by the Fifth Amendment to the U.
- §626-0001-0510
- §626-0001-0511
- §1 - RULE 512 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with the U.
- §76. - McCormick recommends recognizing "only privileges which are soundly based in policy and according those privileges the fullest protection by precluding comment and drawing of inferences.
- §621-14 , 621 - 17 (1976) (repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §§49, 51; am L 1943, c 146, §1; am L 1972, c 104, §1(i), (j), (l)).
- §10 , 11 - . "Personal knowledge," for purposes of this rule, means that the witness perceived the event about which he testifies and that he has a present recollection of that perception.
- §701 - , is to complement Rule 601 supra, and to require disqualification of witnesses whose incapacity either to articulate in an understandable fashion or to understand the truthtelling obligation r
- §1-21 1976 - provides that "the word 'oath' includes a solemn affirmation.
- §606-9 1976 - .
- §1 - RULE 605 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §68 - , such a rule is inconsistent with the juror's role as an impartial trier of fact.
- §38. - As the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed.
- §25 - and c 198, §1(1) RULE 608 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §1 - RULE 609.
- §621-22 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §57; am L 1972, c 104, §1(q)), which provided for discretionary receipt, for credibility assessment of all witnesses other than crimi
- §626-0001-0610
- §1867 - Chadbourn rev.
- §626-0001-0612
- §621-24 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §60), which provided: "A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing
- §2484 3 - d ed.
- §1837-1841 - Chadbourn rev.
- §801D-7 - .
- §10 - , but liberalizes the traditional doctrine of "strict necessity," which allowed such testimony only where "all the facts cannot be placed before the jury with such clearness as to
- §626-0001-0702_0001
- §13. - Hawaii decisions have tended to adhere to the traditional limitation, e.
- §14. - Characteristic examples of expert testimony based upon firsthand knowledge are the testimony of a physician, based on his medical examination of an individual, of a ballistics expert, based upo
- §12. - Determination of what is or is not an "ultimate issue" rendered the rule difficult to apply in practice; undue restrictiveness in its application often deprived the jury of useful inf
- §14 , 17 - . The general practice of incorporating into the hypothetical question the entire body of relevant data adduced by prior testimony often results in a formulation of formidable length and de
- §1 - RULE 706 COMMENTARY Fed.
- §250. - The definition expresses an important limitation, however.
- §626-0001-0802_0001
- §1 - RULE 802 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §1227 - , which provides the following commentary: "The plaintiff in a wrongful death action.
- §253. - quot;However, no reason is apparent for making distinctions as to what satisfies unavailability for the different exceptions.
- §1 - RULE 805 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §626-0001-0806
- §212. - This second requirement may require proof of an unbroken "chain of custody," see State v.
- §502-81 , 572 - 13(c) (1976, Supp.
- §622-1 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §62; am L 1972, c 104, §2(a)), which provided: "It shall not be necessary to prove an instrument by the attesting witness if atte
- §231. - The best evidence rule initially applied only to documentary evidence, but modern technology has introduced a wide variety of data collection and storage systems to which the rule is equally r
- §1 - RULE 1002 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §622-3 1976 - repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1876, c 32, §44; am L 1945, c 17, §1; am L 1972, c 104, §2(c)), which similarly provided for liberal use of facsimile copies in lieu of originals.
- §626-0001-1004
- §502-82 1976 - recorded instruments of conveyance) dispense with such a requirement.
- §1 - RULE 1006 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §242. - In addition, as the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed.
- §1 - RULE 1008 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.
- §633-32 1976 - .
- §635-15 , 635 - 17 (1976) (repealed 1980) (originally enacted as L 1892, c 56, §1; am L 1932 2d, c 24, §1; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(e); and L 1932 2d, c 24, §2).
- §626-1 - Enactment.
- §626-2 - Effective date; applicability to future cases and pending cases.
- §626-3 - Inconsistent laws.