§604-8 Criminal, misdemeanors, generally.
(a) District courts shall have jurisdiction of, and their criminal
jurisdiction is limited to, criminal offenses punishable by fine, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year whether with or without fine. They shall
not have jurisdiction over any offense for which the accused cannot be held to
answer unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
In any case cognizable by a district court
under this section in which the accused has the right to a trial by jury in the
first instance, the district court, upon demand by the accused for a trial by
jury, shall not exercise jurisdiction over the case, but shall examine and
discharge or commit for trial the accused as provided by law; provided that, if
in any such case the accused does not demand a trial by jury on the date of
arraignment or within ten days thereafter, the district court may exercise jurisdiction
over the case, subject to the right of appeal as provided by law.
(b) The district court shall have concurrent
jurisdiction with the family court of any violation of an order issued pursuant
to chapter 586 or any violation of section 709-904, 709-905, or 709-906 when
multiple offenses are charged and at least one other offense is a criminal
offense within the jurisdiction of the district courts. [L 1896, c 40, §1; am L
1901, c 2, §1; RL 1925, §2276; RL 1935, §3765; RL 1945, §9676; RL 1955, §216-7;
am L 1957, c 37, §1; HRS §604-8; am L 1970, c 188, §16; am L 1971, c 144, §6A;
am L 1992, c 253, §4; am L 1998, c 64, §3; am L 1999, c 20, §1; am L 2001, c
157, §34; am L 2017, c 188, §2]
Rules of Court
See HRPP rules 5, 54(b).
Case Notes
Jury trial may be waived. 17 H. 428 (1906).
Misdemeanors on naval reservation. 19 H. 198 (1908). To
commit, must have evidence of commission of an offense and probability of
guilt. 22 H. 614 (1915).
Embezzlement. 23 H. 91 (1915).
Costs in excess of one year imprisonment is surplusage. 23
H. 766 (1917).
Former jurisdiction under Volstead Act. 27 H. 237 (1923).
No jury trial in first instance for trivial offense. 27 H.
844, 847 (1924).
Prosecution's witnesses should be heard. 30 H. 560 (1928).
No jurisdiction in absence of charge. 34 H. 75 (1937).
"Right" to jury trial refers to constitutional
guarantee involving "serious" offenses, in absence of specific
statutory right to jury trial. 51 H. 612, 466 P.2d 422 (1970).
Where demand for jury trial conferred jurisdiction on circuit
court, subsequent withdrawal of demand does not divest such jurisdiction. 55
H. 394, 520 P.2d 427 (1974).
Defendant's waiver of right to jury trial must be knowing and
voluntary. 61 H. 173, 599 P.2d 282 (1979).
Nothing in this section obviates court's constitutional duty
to inform a defendant of defendant's right to jury trial; court should not
presume a "knowing and voluntary waiver" from a defendant's silence.
75 H. 118, 857 P.2d 576 (1993).
Both the circuit and district courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over DUI cases. 78 H. 367, 893 P.2d 795 (1995).
As no provision in HHCA or its legislative history indicates
intent to exempt Hawaiian home lands from application of state criminal laws,
district court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendants charged with
criminal trespass. 80 H. 168, 907 P.2d 754 (1995).
Where the misdemeanor offense charged against defendant of
assault in the third degree under §707-712 was not amended to a petty misdemeanor,
and defendant had demanded defendant's right to a jury trial pursuant to
§806-60 prior to leaving the courtroom, the district court lacked jurisdiction
to proceed to trial; defendant's conviction for third degree assault in the
course of a mutual affray thus vacated and remanded for a new trial. 128 H.
479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013).
Failure of charging instrument to fully allege the elements
of the crime of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant as set
forth in §291E–61(a)(1) did not abrogate the trial court's subject matter
jurisdiction established under chapter 604. 136 H. 258, 361 P.3d 1161 (2015).
Cited: 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 34, 35 (1900); 17 H. 174, 183 (1905);
9 H. App. 232, 832 P.2d 737 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case:
Schwartz v. State., 361 P.3d 1161 (Haw. 2015).
Schwartz v. State., 361 P.3d 1161 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 30× “5 (prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit courts as including “[c]riminal offenses cognizable under the law of the State, committed within their respective circuits”); HRS § 604-8 (setting forth the narrower criminal jurisdiction of the district courts).”
State v. Choy Foo., 414 P.3d 117 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Third, in this regard, the district court's continuance of the waiver/demand hearing appears to be a practice developed to avoid the possible procedural inefficiencies that would result from the requirements of HRPP Rule 5 and HRS § 604-8. Under HRS § 604-8(a) (2001), the…”
State v. Dwyer, 893 P.2d 795 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 20× “Thereafter, the Defendants’ cases were committed to the circuit court because, at the time Defendants were arraigned in district court, HRS § 604-8 (1985) precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction over any criminal jury trials.”
State v. Shak, 466 P.2d 422 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 19× “HRS §§ 604-8, 604-9. In circuit court, if trial by jury is required, trial will be by jury.”
State v. Milne. ICA mem. op., filed 06/26/2020., 489 P.3d 433 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 5× “In relevant part, Act 64 of 1998 amended HRS § 604-8 to add the underlined language: (b) The district court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the family court of any violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586 or any violation of section 709-906 when multiple…”
State v. Ibuos, 857 P.2d 576 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The prosecution next argues that the provisions of HRS § 604-8 (1985), requiring an accused to “demand a trial by jury on the date of the arraignment or within ten days thereafter” in order to divest the district court of jurisdiction, takes precedence over HRPP Rule 5(b)(1)’s…”
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” Under HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp. 2001), the criminal jurisdiction of the district courts is limited to “criminal offenses punishable by fine, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year whether with or without fine.”
State v. Kaulia, 291 P.3d 377 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp.2010), in any ease in which the defendant has “the right to a trial by jury in the first instance, the district court, upon demand by the accused for a trial by jury, shall not exercise jurisdiction over the ease, but shall examine and discharge…”
State v. Apollonio., 311 P.3d 676 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp.2011). 3 The legislature also established territorial limitations on criminal jurisdiction, providing in relevant part that “a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person’s own conduct or the conduct of another…”
Eaton v. Eaton, 748 P.2d 801 (Haw. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “9 District courts have limited civil jurisdiction, see HRS § 604-5, and limited criminal jurisdiction, see HRS § 604-8. They do not have jurisdiction over “real actions, nor actions in which the tide to real estate comes in question!.”
State v. Bereday, 210 P.3d 9 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “We further conclude that the district court had jurisdiction over this ease pursuant to HRS § 604-8 (Supp. 2008), which grants the district courts jurisdiction over criminal offenses punishable by fíne or imprisonment not exceeding one year.”
State v. Walker, 284 P.3d 905 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “”) HRS § 806-34 requires that the description of the transaction (1) identifies the transaction; (2) brings the transaction within the definition of the offense; (3) shows that the court has jurisdiction; and (4) gives notice of the facts to the accused. The statute’s reference…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-8(a) — 5 cases
Schwartz v. State., 361 P.3d 1161 (Haw. 2015).
“5 (prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit courts as including “[c]riminal offenses cognizable under the law of the State, committed within their respective circuits”); HRS § 604-8 (setting forth the narrower criminal jurisdiction of the district courts).”
State v. Choy Foo., 414 P.3d 117 (Haw. 2018).
“Third, in this regard, the district court's continuance of the waiver/demand hearing appears to be a practice developed to avoid the possible procedural inefficiencies that would result from the requirements of HRPP Rule 5 and HRS § 604-8. Under HRS § 604-8(a) (2001), the…”
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
“” Under HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp. 2001), the criminal jurisdiction of the district courts is limited to “criminal offenses punishable by fine, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year whether with or without fine.”
State v. Kaulia, 291 P.3d 377 (Haw. 2013).
“Pursuant to HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp.2010), in any ease in which the defendant has “the right to a trial by jury in the first instance, the district court, upon demand by the accused for a trial by jury, shall not exercise jurisdiction over the ease, but shall examine and discharge…”
State v. Apollonio., 311 P.3d 676 (Haw. 2013).
“HRS § 604-8(a) (Supp.2011). 3 The legislature also established territorial limitations on criminal jurisdiction, providing in relevant part that “a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person’s own conduct or the conduct of another…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-8(b) — 2 cases
State v. Milne. ICA mem. op., filed 06/26/2020., 489 P.3d 433 (Haw. 2021).
“In relevant part, Act 64 of 1998 amended HRS § 604-8 to add the underlined language: (b) The district court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the family court of any violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586 or any violation of section 709-906 when multiple…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.