§1 - RULE 802 COMMENTARY This rule is identical with Fed.

Rule 802  Hearsay rule.  Hearsay is not
admissible except as provided by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by
the Hawaii supreme court, or by statute. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1]

RULE 802 COMMENTARY

  This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 802, except
for the substitution of the phrase "by the Hawaii supreme court or by
statute" for the federal rule formulation, "by the Supreme Court
pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress," and the addition
of a comma after "rules" to increase clarity.

  The exclusionary rule does not apply to statements that fall
under any of the various hearsay exceptions categorized in Rules 802.1, 803,
and 804.  Another important limitation to the rule is the provision excepting
rules prescribed by the Hawaii Supreme Court.  Some examples of this exception
are HRCP 4(g), allowing proof of service by affidavit; HRCP 43(e), allowing
affidavits on a motion based on facts not appearing of record; HRCP 56,
allowing affidavits in summary judgment proceedings; and HRCP 65(b), allowing
showing by affidavit for a temporary restraining order.

  The Hawaii Supreme Court has frequently and routinely
affirmed the truism that hearsay is inadmissible unless it qualifies under a
hearsay exception, e.g., State v. Bannister, 60 H. 658, 660, 594 P.2d 133, 134
(1979).  The rationale, noted the Bannister court, is that "the trier of
fact is unable to test the [declarant's] trustworthiness."

Case Notes

  Where store security manager's testimony regarding the
price/value of items, based on a universal price code with the price on the
item that the manager verified through the store register system, was
inadmissible hearsay, State failed to introduce substantial evidence of the
value of the items necessary to support the charged offense of second or third
degree theft; however, evidence was sufficient to support conviction of lesser
included offense of fourth degree theft.  95 H. 169 (App.), 19 P.3d 752.