post-trial challenge in Hawaii

2007In rejecting the “demand” rule, this court “de-elinefd] to adopt a rule which places ... burdens on the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right[,]” inasmuch as “[cjourts using the demand rule will not entertain a post-trial challenge based on the right to testify.” 79 Hawai'i at 233-34 , 900 P.2d at 1300-01 .

2007In rejecting the "demand" rule, this court "decline[d] to adopt a rule which places . . . burdens on the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right[,]" inasmuch as "[c]ourts using the demand rule will not entertain a post-trial challenge based on the right to testify." 79 Hawai`i at 233-34, 900 P.2d at 1300-01 .

2000In adopting the colloquy approach in Ta-chibana, this court’s majority rejected both the “demand” rule, under which “ ‘a defendant who fails to complain about the right to testify during trial is conclusively presumed to have waived that right[,]’ ” 79 Hawai'i at 233 , 900 P.2d at 1300 (quoting Boyd, 586 A.2d at 676 ), and the post-trial challenge approach where “ ‘a tidal judge need not sm sponte question the defendant during the trial, but the defendant is free to bring a post-conviction challenge based on a denial of the right to testify.’ ” Id. (quoting Boyd, 586 A.2d at 677 ).

2000In adopting the colloquy approach in Ta-chibana, this court’s majority rejected both the “demand” rule, under which “ ‘a defendant who fails to complain about the right to testify during trial is conclusively presumed to have waived that right[,]’ ” 79 Hawai'i at 233 , 900 P.2d at 1300 (quoting Boyd, 586 A.2d at 676 ), and the post-trial challenge approach where “ ‘a tidal judge need not sm sponte question the defendant during the trial, but the defendant is free to bring a post-conviction challenge based on a denial of the right to testify.’ ” Id. (quoting Boyd, 586 A.2d at 677 ).

2003However, habeas relief is a collateral attack on the original judgment and is thus available, not as a method of appealing the decision of the court, but only when "persons are unlawfully _ restrained of their liberty!.] ” HRS § 660-3 (1993) (emphasis added.) See In re Gamaya, 25 Haw. 414, 417 (1920) ("It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus will not be permitted to perform the functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of reviewing errors or irregularities in proceedings of a court having jurisdiction over the person and the subject-matter.”) .

2003However, habeas relief is a collateral attack on the original judgment and is thus available, not as a method of appealing the decision of the court, but only when "persons are unlawfully restrained of their liberty[.]" HRS § 660-3 (1993) (emphasis added.) See In re Gamaya, 25 Haw. 414, 417 (1920) ("It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus will not be permitted to perform the functions of a writ of error or appeal for the purpose of reviewing errors or irregularities in proceedings of a court having jurisdiction over the person and the subject-matter.") [13] If the defendant is committe

2003See also Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (reviewing commitment of the petitioner pursuant to HRS § 704-411(1)(a) after a post-trial hearing, on constitutional and admissibility of hearsay evidence grounds).

2003See also Thompson v. Yuen, 63 Haw. 186 , 623 P.2d 881 (1981) (reviewing commitment of the petitioner pursuant to HRS § 704-411(1)(a) after a post-trial hearing, on constitutional and admissibility of hearsay evidence grounds).