The Hawaii Rules of Evidence are the state-court rules, codified in Chapter 626 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, that control what information a judge or jury is allowed to consider at trial.1Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 101 Scope They are modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence, but Hawaii has made its own choices in several places that matter, especially around hearsay, impeachment with prior convictions, and the protection of settlement and mediation discussions. If you are a party, a witness, or just trying to follow a case, these are the rules shaping what comes in and what stays out.
Relevance and the Judge’s Balancing Power
Every exhibit and every answer from the witness stand has to clear a relevance threshold. Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it makes any fact that matters to the case even slightly more or less probable.2Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 401 Definition of Relevant Evidence The bar is intentionally low, and Rule 402 then states the operating principle: relevant evidence comes in, irrelevant evidence stays out.3Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 402 Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible
Clearing relevance is not the end of the inquiry. Rule 403 lets the judge exclude relevant evidence when its value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time.4Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time A graphic injury photograph may be plainly relevant and still be kept out if its emotional pull would overwhelm the jury’s ability to weigh the case rationally. Much of what trial lawyers argue over before and during a hearing is some version of this balance.
Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts
Rule 404 generally forbids using a person’s character to prove they acted in character on a specific occasion.5Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 404 Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes The reason is practical. Letting a jury hear that someone has a short temper invites a verdict based on who the person is rather than what happened on the day in question.
Criminal cases carry narrow exceptions. A defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait, and the prosecution can then rebut it. In a homicide case where self-defense is raised, the prosecution can introduce evidence that the victim was peaceful.
Rule 404(b) handles evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. A prior conviction cannot come in to suggest the defendant is the sort of person who commits crimes, but it may come in to prove something specific: motive, intent, plan, identity, or absence of mistake. In criminal cases the prosecution must give reasonable notice of its intent to use this kind of evidence. The line between forbidden character reasoning and permitted purpose-specific reasoning is one of the most litigated issues in Hawaii criminal practice.
Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered at trial to prove the truth of what the statement asserts. Rule 802 makes it inadmissible by default because the person who originally spoke is not in court to be cross-examined, and cross-examination is how the system tests whether a statement is accurate, honest, or complete.6Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 802 Hearsay Rule
Exceptions That Apply Whether or Not the Speaker Is Available
Rule 803 lists statements considered reliable enough to admit even when the speaker could be called to the stand.7Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial Three come up constantly:
- Present sense impression: a statement describing an event made while the speaker was perceiving it or immediately afterward.
- Excited utterance: a statement about a startling event made while the speaker was still under the stress of it.
- Business records: records kept in the regular course of business, made at or near the time of the event, introduced through a qualified custodian or by certification.
Exceptions That Require the Speaker to Be Unavailable
Rule 804 applies when the person who made the statement cannot testify because of death, illness, privilege, or refusal to appear in defiance of a court order. Among the admissible categories is a statement against interest: one so damaging to the speaker’s financial, legal, or personal position that no reasonable person would have made it unless they believed it was true. When such a statement is offered to exonerate a criminal defendant, it must be supported by corroborating circumstances clearly showing its trustworthiness.8Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 804 Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
The Residual Exception Lives Inside Rule 803
Hawaii does not have a standalone Rule 807 like the federal system. The residual hearsay exception sits inside Rule 803(b)(24). It allows a statement that fits no named exception to come in if it carries equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, is more probative on the point than any other evidence reasonably available, and serves the interests of justice. The offering party must give advance notice to the other side, including the substance of the statement and the name of the speaker. Courts treat the exception as a narrow safety valve rather than a general workaround.
Privileged Communications
Some relationships depend on confidentiality to work at all, and the rules shield communications inside them even when the information would help resolve a case.
Lawyer-Client
Rule 503 lets a client prevent disclosure of confidential communications made to obtain legal services.9Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 503 Lawyer-Client Privilege It covers conversations between the client and the lawyer, between the lawyer and the lawyer’s staff, and among lawyers representing the same client. The privilege belongs to the client; the attorney can assert it on the client’s behalf.
Physician-Patient
Rule 504 protects confidential communications made to diagnose or treat a physical, mental, or emotional condition, including substance addiction.10Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 504 Physician-Patient Privilege It reaches family members involved in the treatment under the physician’s direction. The patient holds the privilege and decides whether to waive it.
Spousal
Rule 505 recognizes two distinct protections for married people. In a criminal case, the spouse of the accused can refuse to testify against them; that privilege belongs to the witness-spouse, not the defendant. Separately, either spouse can block disclosure of confidential communications made during the marriage. The first shields the spouse from the stand; the second shields the content of private conversations regardless of who is being asked about them.11Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 505 Spousal Privilege
Witnesses, Lay Opinion, and Experts
Hawaii starts from the position that everyone is competent to testify.12Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 601 General Rule of Competency The rules do not automatically disqualify children or people with mental disabilities; competency is handled case by case. Rule 602 adds that a non-expert witness must have personal knowledge, meaning the witness perceived the events through their own senses.13Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 602 Lack of Personal Knowledge You cannot take the stand to repeat what a neighbor told you about an accident you did not see.
A lay witness may offer an opinion under Rule 701, but only one drawn from personal observation and only when it helps the jury follow the testimony or decide a disputed fact.14Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 701 Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses A witness can say the driver appeared intoxicated based on what they saw and smelled; they cannot opine on the driver’s blood alcohol level.
Rule 702 governs expert testimony. A witness with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education can testify as an expert when the expertise will help the jury understand the evidence or resolve a fact.15Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 702 Testimony by Experts Hawaii courts also assess whether the expert’s method is trustworthy and valid, giving judges a gatekeeping role over unreliable science.16Hawaii State Judiciary. State v. Maxwell F. Jones, SCWC-16-0000345 The qualifying criteria are flexible enough to include practical experience alongside formal degrees.
Impeachment With Prior Convictions
Hawaii is narrower than the federal system here, and the difference matters. Under Rule 609, a witness may be impeached with a prior conviction only if the crime involved dishonesty, such as fraud, perjury, or forgery.17Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 609 Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime Violent felonies and drug offenses do not qualify, no matter how serious, unless dishonesty was an element. The federal rule, by contrast, lets any crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment be used.
Hawaii adds a further protection for a criminal defendant who testifies: the defendant cannot be questioned about prior convictions for credibility purposes unless the defendant first introduces testimony building up their own credibility. A pardon wipes out the conviction for impeachment purposes entirely, and a pending appeal does not block the use of the conviction.
Policy-Based Exclusions
Several categories of evidence are kept out not because they are unreliable but because admitting them would discourage behavior the law wants to encourage.
Repairs After an Injury
If a property owner fixes a broken stairway after someone falls, the repair cannot be used to prove the stairway was dangerous or that the owner was negligent. The policy is simple: making repairs admissible would give owners a reason to leave hazards in place. Hawaii’s version is slightly broader than the federal rule because it explicitly permits evidence of subsequent measures to prove a dangerous defect in products liability cases, along with the standard exceptions for proving ownership, control, or feasibility when those are disputed.18Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 407 Subsequent Remedial Measures
Settlement and Mediation
Rule 408 keeps settlement offers, compromise negotiations, and mediation proceedings out of evidence when offered to prove liability or the amount of a claim. The protection covers both the offers and statements made during the process. Hawaii’s rule explicitly extends to mediation, which the federal rule does not address as directly.19Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 408 Compromise, Offers to Compromise, and Mediation Proceedings Documents that would have been discoverable anyway do not become privileged just because a party happened to use them during negotiations.
Offers to Pay Medical Bills
Under Rule 409, offering to pay someone’s medical expenses after an injury cannot be used to prove fault.20Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 409 Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses Note the limit: unlike settlement discussions under Rule 408, this rule does not protect statements made alongside the offer. Saying “I’ll cover the hospital bill, it was my fault” keeps the offer out but leaves the admission of fault available.
Authentication and the Best Evidence Rule
Before a document, object, or recording comes in, the party offering it must show it is what they claim it to be. Rule 901 sets the threshold at enough evidence to support a reasonable finding of authenticity.21Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 901 Requirement of Authentication or Identification For a contract, that might be testimony from someone who watched it get signed; for a photograph, a witness confirming the scene is accurate.
Rule 902 identifies categories considered trustworthy on their face, so no sponsoring witness is required.22Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 902 Self-Authentication These include sealed government documents, certified copies of public records, official government publications, newspapers and periodicals, notarized documents, and trade inscriptions placed in the ordinary course of business.
Rule 1002, the best evidence rule, requires the original writing, recording, or photograph when a party wants to prove its contents.23Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 1002 Requirement of Original To prove the terms of a lease, bring the lease. If the original has been lost or destroyed without bad faith, the court can accept other proof, but the original remains the default.
Judicial Notice and the Rule of Completeness
Not every fact needs a witness. Under Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute, either because it is commonly known in the area or because it can be verified from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.24Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Geographic facts, calendar dates, and matters of public record are typical. The effect splits by case type: in civil proceedings, a judicially noticed fact is conclusive and the jury is instructed to accept it; in criminal cases, the jury may accept the fact but is not required to, preserving the defendant’s right to have the jury decide every element.
Finally, Rule 106 prevents a party from cherry-picking the most favorable slice of a document or recording. When one side introduces part of a writing or recorded statement, the other side can immediately require any other part that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.25Justia. Hawaii Code 626 – Rule 106 Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements The completing portion comes in alongside the original, not later when the context has already set in the jury’s mind.