If you only remember one point about evidence law in Hawaii, remember this: Hawaii evidence practice is organized under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Haw. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Haw. R. Evid. 801, 802. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Hawaii Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Haw. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Haw. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Criminal discovery follows Haw. R. Penal P. 16; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable under 804(a).
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Hawaii are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Haw. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Hawaii hearsay opinions
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES F. ANTONE, Defendant-Appellant
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES F. ANTONE, Defendant-Appellant, 62 Haw. 346 (1980)
…fense counsel failed to raise any objection to inadmissible hearsay testimony by four State witnesses thereby permitting the complainant’s account of the alleged rape to be retold four times. 6. Defense counsel on cross-examination of a State witness elicited testimony revealing that the appellant had taken three separate lie detector tests concerning the February 14, 1976 inci…
On hearsay, STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES F. ANTONE, Defendant-Appellant speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "State witnesses thereby permitting the complainant’s account of the alleged rape to be retold four times. 6." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GEORGE PATRICK MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GEORGE PATRICK MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant, 59 Haw. 1 (1978)
…grand jury improperly indicted him on the basis of certain hearsay testimony elicited during the grand jury proceeding. During the course of the grand jury hearing, Honolulu Police Detective Paul Trepte was called to testify regarding his investigation of the Linda Knodle homicide. The grand jury transcript, a copy of which is a part of the record in this case, reveals that De…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GEORGE PATRICK MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "During the course of the grand jury hearing, Honolulu Police Detective Paul Trepte was called to testify regarding his investigation of the Linda Knodle homicide." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed
…R *** proceeding. We consider: whether promissory notes are hearsay, admissible only if they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule; whether a copy of a promissory note is self-authenticating under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and the evidentiary burden mortgagees must meet to es…
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed is worth reading on Hawaii hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "R *** proceeding. We consider: whether promissory notes are hearsay, admissible only if they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule; whether a copy of a promissory note is self-authenticating under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the b" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Hawai'i, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Manuel JHUN, Respondent-Appellant
STATE of Hawai'i, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Manuel JHUN, Respondent-Appellant, 83 Haw. 472 (1996)
…, namely, whether the trial court had erred by applying the hearsay rule, precluding Jhun from cross-examining a police officer about the contents of an absent witness’s statements that the police officer had written down in his investigative report. The police officer’s testimony about the absent witness’s statements might have supported Jhun’s assertion that he had been justi…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Manuel JHUN, Respondent-Appellant when Hawaii hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Jhun from cross-examining a police officer about the contents of an absent witness’s statements that the police officer had written down in his investigative report." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. Reginald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner — Acoba, J
…vely erred (1) by failing to find that the admission of the hearsay statements of Melinda Staggs (Staggs) and Dave Richards (Richards) did not violate the confrontation clause of the Hawai'i Constitution, (2) by declining to find plain error and in abdicating judicial review in favor of a Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition, and (3) by not vacating Petition…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. Reginald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner — Acoba, J are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "vely erred (1) by failing to find that the admission of the hearsay statements of Melinda Staggs (Staggs) and Dave Richards (Richards) did not violate the confrontation clause of the Hawai'i Constitution, (2) by declining to find plain error and in abdicating judicial review in f" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
…analyze whether [the Complainant’s] testimony violated the hearsay and the best evidence rules? II. Whether the [ICA] gravely erred by failing to apply Hawai'i Rule[s] of Evidence [ (HRE) Rule] 403 and whether the [SDO] is inconsistent with Yap v. Controlled, Parasailing of Honolulu, Inc., 76 [Hawai'i] 248, 873 P.2d 1321 (1994) and Lau v. Allied Wholesale, Inc., 82 [Hawai'i] 4…
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Hawaii hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Complainant’s] testimony violated the hearsay and the best evidence rules?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny H. HAILI, Defendant-Appellant
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny H. HAILI, Defendant-Appellant, 103 Haw. 89 (2003)
…g points of error: (1) the circuit court erred in admitting hearsay testimony by five different witnesses, thereby violating, inter alia, his constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses; (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to further examine a juror after the close of evidence when the parties learned that she was the wife of a former deputy prosecutor; (3) the circu…
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny H. HAILI, Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Hawaii hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "g points of error: (1) the circuit court erred in admitting hearsay testimony by five different witnesses, thereby violating, inter alia, his constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses; (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to further examine a juror after the close of" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Walking through Hawaii facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Hawaii authority does the work at each step.
A lawyer in Hawaii wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Haw. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Haw. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Haw. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Haw. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Haw. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Haw. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Hawaii keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Hawaii Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Hawaii treats them under Haw. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Hawaii party-admission opinions
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
…bly be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission by a party-opponent under HRE 803(a)(1). Thus, Petitioner and Respondent appear to agree that the text messages themselves are hearsay but are admissible as a party admission. That exception provides that an admission by a par*133ty-opponent is “[a] statement that is offered against a party and is (A) the par…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant when Hawaii party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "HRE 803(a)(1). Thus, Petitioner and Respondent appear to agree that the text messages themselves are hearsay but are admissible as a party admission." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Less Allen SCHNABEL, Petitioner/Defendant- — Recktenwald, J
…stem of justice: whether to address a possible error in the admission of evidence against a defendant in a criminal case, when the defendant failed to object in the trial court. We have visited this issue many times recently, utilizing the principle of plain error that is expressly set forth in Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b). The court today relies on plain…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Less Allen SCHNABEL, Petitioner/Defendant- — Recktenwald, J when Hawaii party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We have visited this issue many times recently, utilizing the principle of plain error that is expressly set forth in Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA
…dez, to call Kaiser Hospital in Honolulu to arrange for his admission there. Accordingly, Ms. Fernandez contacted the hospital and was informed that a bed would be available for George Jr. Ms. Fernandez was further advised by Kaiser Hospital that the decedent could either be directly driven into Honolulu or, if he got worse, be taken to Kaiser Koolau Clinic in Kaneohe where an…
Hawaii opinions such as GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Kaiser Hospital in Honolulu to arrange for his admission there. Accordingly, Ms. Fernandez contacted the hospital and was informed that a bed would be available for George Jr. Ms." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Lavoie.
State v. Lavoie., 145 Haw. 409 (2019)
…ad a bench conference where defense counsel objected to the admission of the two incidents. The prosecutor argued that the incidents rebutted the notion that the shooting came from a psychiatric disorder and showed an abusive relationship rather than a mental disorder. The court, in overruling Lavoie’s objection, noted that defense counsel elicited opinions as to both the EMED…
Hawaii opinions such as State v. Lavoie. are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "The prosecutor argued that the incidents rebutted the notion that the shooting came from a psychiatric disorder and showed an abusive relationship rather than a mental disorder." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Faa P. FETELEE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
…her male. One of the focal points of this case involves the admission of the events that occurred during the apartment incident as part of the res gestae2 of the charged offenses. In his application, Fetelee essentially contends that the ICA committed grave error in acknowledging the common law res gestae doctrine as an exception as to Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 404(b)…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Faa P. FETELEE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "One of the focal points of this case involves the admission of the events that occurred during the apartment incident as part of the res gestae2 of the charged offenses." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES FRANKLIN MESSAMORE, Defendant-Appellant
…luence or incapacity originated. ... As a foundation to the admission of the prior consistent statement, the party seeking admission must establish that the statement was made at a time prior to the existence of motive, interest or fabrication. Matter of Adoption of Male Child, 1 Haw. App. 364, 619 P.2d 1092, 1098 (1980). However, we need not decide that question because revers…
On party admissions, STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES FRANKLIN MESSAMORE, Defendant-Appellant speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "As a foundation to the admission of the prior consistent statement, the party seeking admission must establish that the statement was made at a time prior to the existence of motive, interest or fabrication. Matter of Adoption of Male Child, 1 Haw. App. 364, 619 P." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Business records
The business-records exception under Haw. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Hawaii business-records opinions
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed
…f Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and the evidentiary burden mortgagees must meet to establish standing in the foreclosure context. We conclude that promissory notes are not hearsay, that copies of promissory notes are not self-authenticating under HRE Rule 902(9), and that, under the incorporated records…
Hawaii opinions such as U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and the evidentiary burden mortgagees must meet to establish standing in the foreclosure context." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachariah I. FIT — Acoba, J., concurring in part and dissenting
…ed sufficient foundation to admit the speed check card as a business record; (2) holding that the speed check card qualified as a business record; (3) holding that the admission of the speed check card was not a violation of Petitioner’s right to confrontation under either the Hawai'i or United States Constitutions, and (4) failing to address, as a matter of plain error, that O…
On business records, STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachariah I. FIT — Acoba, J., concurring in part and dissenting speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "ed sufficient foundation to admit the speed check card as a business record; (2) holding that the speed check card qualified as a business record; (3) holding that the admission of the speed check card was not a violation of Petitioner’s right to confrontation under either the Ha" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEROY VUN BIN ING, Defendant-Appellant — Levinson, J., concurring
…ld have been admitted into evidence under HRS § 622-51 as a business record exception to the hearsay rule.2 In future cases, I think it better procedure to lay a more detailed foundation for the business record than was done in the instant case. Such a procedure, in my view, would entail establishing: (1) that the speed check was performed as part of the regular maintenance of…
Practitioners open STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEROY VUN BIN ING, Defendant-Appellant — Levinson, J., concurring when Hawaii business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "HRS § 622-51 as a business record exception to the hearsay rule.2 In future cases, I think it better procedure to lay a more detailed foundation for the business record than was done in the instant case." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i v. Ubaldo A. CRUZ
STATE of Hawai'i v. Ubaldo A. CRUZ, 135 Haw. 294 (2015)
…n of Crawford:2 Whether the foundation for the admission of business records which may be laid by way of declaration under our rules of evidence must meet the live testimony and cross-examination requirements of the Confrontation Clause.3 Background This case arises out of sexual assaults committed by DefendanL-Appellant Ubaldo A. Cruz (Cruz) against his neighbor’s daughter (CW…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i v. Ubaldo A. CRUZ when Hawaii business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Crawford:2 Whether the foundation for the admission of business records which may be laid by way of declaration under our rules of evidence must meet the live testimony and cross-examination requirements of the Confrontation Clause." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 v. Compton
…ator, Countrywide, the Note could not be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Given the inadmissibility of the Note, the ICA concluded, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment: there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank had standing to initiate this foreclosure action when it was commenced.” On certiorari, U.S. Bank…
Hawaii opinions such as U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 v. Compton are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Countrywide, the Note could not be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Given the inadmissibility of the Note, the ICA concluded, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment: there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 v. Compton
…ator, Countrywide, the Note could not be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Given the inadmissibility of the Note, the ICA concluded, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment: there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S. Bank had standing to initiate this foreclosure action when it was commenced.” On certiorari, U.S. Bank…
U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 v. Compton is worth reading on Hawaii business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Countrywide, the Note could not be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Given the inadmissibility of the Note, the ICA concluded, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment: there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether U.S." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Compton
U.S. Bank National Association v. Compton, 148 Haw. 275 (2020)
…t through (1) the "Declaration of Indebtedness and on Prior Business Records" by Carol Davis (Davis), a "Document Execution Specialist" employed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar), as servicing agent for U.S. Bank, attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and (2) the "Declaration of Custodian of Note" by Gina Santellan (Santellan), a "custodian of orig…
U.S. Bank National Association v. Compton is worth reading on Hawaii business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Declaration of Indebtedness and on Prior Business Records' by Carol Davis (Davis), a 'Document Execution Specialist' employed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar), as servicing agent for U.S." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Hawaii trial practice.
Excited utterance — Haw. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Haw. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Haw. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Haw. R. Evid. 804(a), Hawaii opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Hawaii dying-declaration opinions
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
…ker’s name was hearsay ádmis-sible under the exceptions for dying declarations and excited utterances and therefore, testimony from witnesses regarding the writing was admissible). Thus, the Complainant’s testimony about the text messages is admissible because the text messages themselves would be admissible under the exception for party admissions. C. 1. Petitioner also argues…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher K. ESPIRITU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Thus, the Complainant’s testimony about the text messages is admissible because the text messages themselves would be admissible under the exception for party admissions. C. 1." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
TERRITORY v. DAVID C. BUICK
TERRITORY v. DAVID C. BUICK, 27 Haw. 28 (1923)
…diately preceding the shooting is to be found solely in the dying declaration of the decedent Ito as he lay in bed in the Queen’s Hospital in this city about a week after the shooting and at a time when, as the trial judge found, the decedent realized that he was about to die from the effects of his wounds. The story as thus told by Ito was substantially as follows: One of his…
Practitioners open TERRITORY v. DAVID C. BUICK when Hawaii dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ito as he lay in bed in the Queen’s Hospital in this city about a week after the shooting and at a time when, as the trial judge found, the decedent realized that he was about to die from the effects of his wounds." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Hawaii v. Roberta K. Kaupu Adrian
State of Hawaii v. Roberta K. Kaupu Adrian, 51 Haw. 125 (1969)
…exceptions to the right of confrontation such as admitting dying declarations against an accused, Pointer v. Texas, supra at 407, and testimony of an unavailable witness who gave testi *133 mony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant, if the state has made a good faith effort to obtain the presence o…
State of Hawaii v. Roberta K. Kaupu Adrian is worth reading on Hawaii dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "exceptions to the right of confrontation such as admitting dying declarations against an accused, Pointer v. Texas, supra at 407, and testimony of an unavailable witness who gave testi *133 mony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cros" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEROY VUN BIN ING, Defendant-Appellant — Levinson, J., concurring
…exceptions to the right of confrontation such as admitting dying declarations against an accused, Pointer v. Texas [380 U.S. 400, 407 (1965)], and testimony of an unavailable witness who gave testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant, if the state has made a good faith effort to obtain the pre…
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEROY VUN BIN ING, Defendant-Appellant — Levinson, J., concurring is worth reading on Hawaii dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "exceptions to the right of confrontation such as admitting dying declarations against an accused, Pointer v. Texas [380 U.S. 400, 407 (1965)], and testimony of an unavailable witness who gave testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Rex v. Tin Ah Chin, Cheong Kam Ford, Lauon, and Agnee
Rex v. Tin Ah Chin, Cheong Kam Ford, Lauon, and Agnee, 3 Haw. 90 (1869)
…effect. The instructions upon confessions, admissions, and dying declarations, seem correct enough, and so far as appears, the verdict was not contrary thereto. As to the certainly very improper language of the juror, we do not consider it sufficient cause for setting aside the verdict. The irregularity in a juror’s conduct to warrant this, “should be of such a nature as to af…
Hawaii opinions such as Rex v. Tin Ah Chin, Cheong Kam Ford, Lauon, and Agnee are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "The instructions upon confessions, admissions, and dying declarations, seem correct enough, and so far as appears, the verdict was not contrary thereto. As to the certainly very improper language of the juror, we do not consider it sufficient cause for setting aside the verdict." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS v. CHARLES AUGUST HERING
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS v. CHARLES AUGUST HERING, 9 Haw. 181 (1893)
…. Ninth. The trial Court admitted as evidence the so-called dying declarations made by the deceased Huntsman, as to who his assailant was and other circumstances. This was objected to, in that it did not appear from the evidence of the witnesses that Huntsman, at the time he made the declarations, realized that he was in a dying condition and spoke under the belief and sanction…
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS v. CHARLES AUGUST HERING is worth reading on Hawaii dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Ninth. The trial Court admitted as evidence the so-called dying declarations made by the deceased Huntsman, as to who his assailant was and other circumstances." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Haw. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Hawaii medical-statement opinions
GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA
…n the ground that it constituted statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4); 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, supra at 803(4) [01]. 6 Cross-examination by Mr. Beck: Q. Did he [the decedent] have sufficient pneumonia, in your opinion, on February 3, 1972, to impair his breathing? A. I don’t know what…
GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA is worth reading on Hawaii medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "See Fed. R. Evid. 803(4); 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, supra at 803(4) [01]. 6 Cross-examination by Mr. Beck: Q. Did he [the decedent] have sufficient pneumonia, in your opinion, on February 3, 1972, to impair his breathing?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tetsuya YAMADA, Defendant-Appellant
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tetsuya YAMADA, Defendant-Appellant, 99 Haw. 542 (2002)
…ohibition against hearsay, statements made “for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment ... insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” (Emphases added.) Thus, by its plain language, HRE Rule 803(b)(4) permits, contrary to the circuit court’s belief, the admission of statements made solely for the purpose of diagnosis, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagn…
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tetsuya YAMADA, Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Hawaii medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "ohibition against hearsay, statements made “for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment ... insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” (Emphases added.) Thus, by its plain language, HRE Rule 803(b)(4) permits, contrary to the circuit court’s belief, the admiss" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. James George PLICHTA, Defendant-Appellant-Petit — Acoba, J
…of confidence essential for effective psychiatric and other medical diagnosis or treatment.” Commentary on HRS § 704-416 (quoting MPC Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 201 (1955) (brackets omitted)). The examination itself would necessarily become a forum for presenting a legal defense in anticipation of the type of cross-examination allowed in the instant ease. For permitting…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. James George PLICHTA, Defendant-Appellant-Petit — Acoba, J are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Commentary on HRS § 704-416 (quoting MPC Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 201 (1955) (brackets omitted)). The examination itself would necessarily become a forum for presenting a legal defense in anticipation of the type of cross-examination allowed in the instant ease." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Mila BOCALBOS, Claimant-Appellant, v. KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN and John Mullen & Co., Inc
…that finding 17 “led the [Board] to infer that [she] had a medical diagnosis of pre-existing malocclusion.” Finding 17 states: 17. [Bocalbos] also saw [Roucis], a dentist in Colorado, on March 3, 1989, to repair a retainer. Following orthodontic treatment in 1978, [Bocalbos] had been placed on a retainer by [Kamisugi]. According to [Bocalbos], she wore this retainer for less t…
Practitioners open Mila BOCALBOS, Claimant-Appellant, v. KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN and John Mullen & Co., Inc when Hawaii medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Board] to infer that [she] had a medical diagnosis of pre-existing malocclusion.” Finding 17 states: 17. [Bocalbos] also saw [Roucis], a dentist in Colorado, on March 3, 1989, to repair a retainer." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee v. John C. VEIKOSO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant
…THE COURT: Under 803(b)(4)[ 9 ] statements for purposes of medical diagnosis, the doctor has to do a thorough diagnosis; and based on the diagnosis, it’s going to lead to the appropriate treatment. So finding out, for instance, whether an assault takes place or takes place with a stranger or intimate family member is going to have to do with the doctor’s treatment recommendati…
STATE of Hawai'i, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee v. John C. VEIKOSO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Hawaii medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "THE COURT: Under 803(b)(4)[ 9 ] statements for purposes of medical diagnosis, the doctor has to do a thorough diagnosis; and based on the diagnosis, it’s going to lead to the appropriate treatment." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Use of depositions at trial
Haw. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Criminal discovery follows Haw. R. Penal P. 16; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable under 804(a).
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Hawaii deposition / former-testimony opinions
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. Reginald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner — Acoba, J
…hat the witness’s “grand jury testimony closely resembled a deposition or ex parte affidavit of the sort condemned in Mattox[ v. United States], 156 U.S. [237,] 242-43, 15 S.Ct. 337 [39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) ].” Id. at 89, 987 P.2d at 987.21 It *546was explained that the confrontation clause was intended to exclude some hearsay altogether and that cross-examination was central to th…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. Reginald FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner — Acoba, J when Hawaii deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mattox[ v. United States], 156 U.S. [237,] 242-43, 15 S.Ct. 337 [39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) ].” Id. at 89, 987 P.2d at 987." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In Re Appeal of Alan L. Goodfader From Order Compelling Him to Answer Questions on Deposition — Mizuha, J., dissenting
…in the New York Herald Tribune on January 10, 1957. In her deposition Miss Torre testified that the statements appearing in the column were in “exact words” statements which had been made to her over the telephone by a CBS informant. The information sought from Miss Torre was the name of this CBS informant and was vital to the successful prosecution of her complaint. That port…
Practitioners open In Re Appeal of Alan L. Goodfader From Order Compelling Him to Answer Questions on Deposition — Mizuha, J., dissenting when Hawaii deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "New York Herald Tribune on January 10, 1957. In her deposition Miss Torre testified that the statements appearing in the column were in “exact words” statements which had been made to her over the telephone by a CBS informant." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA
…nt of plaintiffs’ witnesses by refusing to allow the use of depositions as impeachment evidence; (2) refusing to allow a defense witness to testify as to out-of-court statements made by plaintiffs regarding the medical care and treatment of the decedent before he was examined by Dr. Galbreth; (3) limiting the cross-examination of plaintiffs’ medical expert witnesses to an exten…
Hawaii opinions such as GEORGE N. KEKUA, SR., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE N. KEKUA, JR., Deceased, and MARTHA are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "nt of plaintiffs’ witnesses by refusing to allow the use of depositions as impeachment evidence; (2) refusing to allow a defense witness to testify as to out-of-court statements made by plaintiffs regarding the medical care and treatment of the decedent before he was examined by" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Esther Levy v. George P. Kimball, Trustee of the Estate of Clifford Kimball, Deceased, Dba the Halekulani Hotel, Et Al.
…dence, in Tsuruda v. Farm, 18 Haw. 434 (1907), we held that depositions and transcript of testimonies at a former trial should be admitted into evidence when witnesses are unavailable at the trial based on the principle of necessity. And on the question of unavailability of a witness the court said at page 438 that it: “may result from his death, his absence from the jurisdicti…
Practitioners open Esther Levy v. George P. Kimball, Trustee of the Estate of Clifford Kimball, Deceased, Dba the Halekulani Hotel, Et Al. when Hawaii deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Tsuruda v. Farm, 18 Haw. 434 (1907), we held that depositions and transcript of testimonies at a former trial should be admitted into evidence when witnesses are unavailable at the trial based on the principle of necessity." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
TSURUDA v. T. F. FARM
TSURUDA v. T. F. FARM, 18 Haw. 434 (1907)
…or transcripts by a stenographer. “The principle upon which depositions and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity, —i. e. the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness’ knowledge. If his testimony given anew in court cannot be had, it will be lost entirely for the purposes of doing justice if it is not received in the form in whic…
Hawaii opinions such as TSURUDA v. T. F. FARM are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "The principle upon which depositions and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity, —i. e. the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness’ knowledge." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Haw. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Island geography and federal–state overlap make authentication of shipping manifests, visitor-industry records, and multilingual statements important under Haw. R. Evid. 901. Courts expect custodian or percipient-witness foundations for electronic evidence.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Hawaii trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Hawaii trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Hawaii authenticity opinions
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed
…e hearsay rule; whether a copy of a promissory note is self-authenticating under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and the evidentiary burden mortgagees must meet to establish standing in the foreclosure context. We conclude that promissory notes are not hearsay, that copies of promissory n…
Hawaii opinions such as U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 902(9); the scope and limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and the evidentiary burden mortgagees must meet to establish standing in the foreclosure context." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
KAM FUI TRUST, by and Through Its Authorized Agent, Commercial Management Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gloria
…aise the defense that the debtor’s credit application was unauthenticated hearsay, although his co-guarantor was allowed to assert such a defense. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, stating that the default order entered against the defendant “operates as a confession by the defaulted defendant of the truth of the material facts alleged in the complaint that a…
Hawaii opinions such as KAM FUI TRUST, by and Through Its Authorized Agent, Commercial Management Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gloria are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "aise the defense that the debtor’s credit application was unauthenticated hearsay, although his co-guarantor was allowed to assert such a defense. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, stating that the default order entered against the defendant “operates as a conf" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Karl LIFTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexene BOYER, Defendant-Appellant, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe
…g to admit Dr. Vandell’s Addendum Report based on a lack of authentication as required by HRE Rule 901. I. On the morning of January 26, 1996, while Liftee was riding his bicycle to work along Portlock Road, Boyer struck Liftee with her automobile, causing him to smash into the windshield of Boyer’s automobile and then fall to the ground (first accident). Boyer filed a police r…
Karl LIFTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexene BOYER, Defendant-Appellant, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe is worth reading on Hawaii authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Dr. Vandell’s Addendum Report based on a lack of authentication as required by HRE Rule 901. I." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
JULIAN HULIHEE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees v. Heirs of HUEU (K), Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
…ike documents admissible, under certain conditions, without authentication. The customary minimum requirements are that the document must have been in existence for a period of not less than thirty years, that when originally discovered it must have been in some place where it would be natural to find a genuine document of its tenor and that it must be unsuspicious in appearanc…
Hawaii opinions such as JULIAN HULIHEE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees v. Heirs of HUEU (K), Et Al., Defendants-Appellees are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "ike documents admissible, under certain conditions, without authentication. The customary minimum requirements are that the document must have been in existence for a period of not less than thirty years, that when originally discovered it must have been in some place where it wo" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt (2025)
…enforce the note; and (3) Juliana Thurab, whose declaration authenticated documents supporting Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment, was not a qualified witness. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 41, 414 P.3d at 93. We review conclusions of law de novo under the right/wrong standard. Id. at 40-41, 414 P.3d at 92-93. A mixed finding of…
Practitioners open Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt when Hawaii authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Juliana Thurab, whose declaration authenticated documents supporting Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment, was not a qualified witness. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 41, 414 P.3d at 93." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
A.S. v. R.L.
A.S. v. R.L., 153 Haw. 430 (2023)
…IC REPORTER THE COURT: So with that, do you still need [the authenticating witness] to testify? [FATHER'S COUNSEL]: No, I don't. THE COURT: All right. And you have no further witnesses, [Father's counsel]? [FATHER'S COUNSEL]: No, I have no further witnesses. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can all be seated. So the Court is prepared to rule. . . . . Based upon the credible evid…
Practitioners open A.S. v. R.L. when Hawaii authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "IC REPORTER THE COURT: So with that, do you still need [the authenticating witness] to testify?" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Haw. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Hawaii appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Hawaii starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Haw. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Hawaii courts frequently cite federal advisory-committee notes. Check Haw. R. Evid. 616 and state privilege statutes for localized variations.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Hawaii is governed by Haw. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Hawaii character-evidence opinions
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. J. ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. J. ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant, 69 Haw. 204 (1987)
…). HRE Rule 404 provides in relevant part (emphasis added): Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes, (a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (2) Character of victim. Evide…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. J. ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "HRE Rule 404 provides in relevant part (emphasis added): Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes, (a) Character evidence generally." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE FUMIO PEMBERTON, Also Known as Wayne, Defendant-Appellant
…evant for impeachment purposes, and became instead improper character evidence. Although the court initially allowed Newcomb’s testimony apparently believing both incidents involved the same knife, the court denied Defendant’s motion to strike the testimony even after it learned that different knives were involved. B. Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) 404(b) prohibits the use of e…
Practitioners open STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE FUMIO PEMBERTON, Also Known as Wayne, Defendant-Appellant when Hawaii character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Although the court initially allowed Newcomb’s testimony apparently believing both incidents involved the same knife, the court denied Defendant’s motion to strike the testimony even after it learned that different knives were involved. B." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James BEHRENDT AKA Running Bear
…application): (1) that the circuit court erred in admitting character evidence in violation of HRE Rules 404(b) *1167 and 403; (2) that the circuit court erroneously admitted Dr. Bivens' expert testimony; (3) that the circuit court erred in permitting LI to testify regarding entries in her diary and in admitting her diary into evidence; (4) that the circuit court erred in refus…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James BEHRENDT AKA Running Bear when Hawaii character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "HRE Rules 404(b) *1167 and 403; (2) that the circuit court erroneously admitted Dr." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Faa P. FETELEE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appella — Nakayama, J
…biguity or uncertainty. HRE Rule 404 excludes most types of character evidence because, as the legislature recognized, it is “of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion.” State v. Pemberton, 71 Haw. 466, 471-72, 796 P.2d 80, 83 (1990) (quoting HRE Rule…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Faa P. FETELEE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appella — Nakayama, J are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "HRE Rule 404 excludes most types of character evidence because, as the legislature recognized, it is “of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion.” State v." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
JAMES MEYER, ABEL WOOD, JR., FRANCIS PUSTKA, and P & S PACIFIC, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF
…o v. Akau, 51 Haw. 383, 393, 463 P.2d 917, 923 (1969)). IV. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting the defense motion in limine excluding evidence of “the very violent reputations and characters” of Ramos and Burns. We disagree. The motion in limine sought to exclude evidence of “Ramos’ and Burns’ alleged propensities for violent or belligerent co…
On character evidence, JAMES MEYER, ABEL WOOD, JR., FRANCIS PUSTKA, and P & S PACIFIC, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "Akau, 51 Haw. 383, 393, 463 P.2d 917, 923 (1969)). IV. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting the defense motion in limine excluding evidence of “the very violent reputations and characters” of Ramos and Burns. We disagree." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Edward TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
…xception to the general prohibition in [HRE] Rule 404(a) of character evidence as proof of propensity or behavior in conformity with such character. In accordance with previous law on the subject, evidence of a reputation for truthfulness offered to bolster credibility is admissible only to rebut an attack on the witness’ [sic] veracity. According to the rule, only a character…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Edward TORRES, Defendant-Appellant when Hawaii character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "HRE] Rule 404(a) of character evidence as proof of propensity or behavior in conformity with such character." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
JAMES MEYER, ABEL WOOD, JR., FRANCIS PUSTKA, and P&S PACIFIC INC., Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF
…Feliciano was abrogated by the adoption of HRE 404, so that character evidence was inadmissible in a civil assault case where the question was who committed the first act of aggression. The ICA held that because HRE 404(a) (1) stated: Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person’s character or trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he act…
Hawaii opinions such as JAMES MEYER, ABEL WOOD, JR., FRANCIS PUSTKA, and P&S PACIFIC INC., Petitioners-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Feliciano was abrogated by the adoption of HRE 404, so that character evidence was inadmissible in a civil assault case where the question was who committed the first act of aggression. The ICA held that because HRE 404(a) (1) stated: Character evidence generally." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN ROGER AUSTIN, AKA “STEVE,” Defendant-Appellant
…acts amounted to prejudicial, irrelevant, and inadmissible character evidence. State counters that the probative evidence of Austin's prior drug trafficking with Guzzetta demonstrated Austin's ongoing cocaine distribution plan and complicity with Guzzetta. Although the trial court generally has the wide discretion to admit evidence, Hawaii Rules of Evidence (hereinafter "HRE")…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN ROGER AUSTIN, AKA “STEVE,” Defendant-Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "State counters that the probative evidence of Austin's prior drug trafficking with Guzzetta demonstrated Austin's ongoing cocaine distribution plan and complicity with Guzzetta." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Hawaii?
Hawaii applies the Hawaii Rules of Evidence. Hawaii was an early FRE adopter (1980); Haw. R. Evid. 401–902 track federal rules with modest Hawaii-specific amendments.
How do Hawaii courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Haw. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Hawaii?
Party-opponent statements under Haw. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Haw. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Hawaii?
Haw. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Criminal discovery follows Haw. R. Penal P. 16; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable under 804(a).
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Hawaii authenticity practice starts with Haw. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Haw. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.