§621-26 Confessions, when admissible.
No confession shall be received in evidence unless it is first made to appear
to the judge before whom the case is being tried that the confession was in
fact voluntarily made. [L 1876, c 32, §64; RL 1925, §2630; am L 1927, c 204,
§1; am L 1929, c 62, §1; RL 1935, §3834; RL 1945, §9846; RL 1955, §222-26; HRS
§621-26; am L 1972, c 104, §1(s)]
Revision Note
In section heading, comma added pursuant to §23G-15.
Case Notes
Cross-examination. 34 F.2d 86 (1929); 29 H. 441 (1926).
Intoxication. 32 H. 528 (1932). By silence. 34 H. 167 (1937). Written. 188
F.2d 54 (1951); 36 H. 1 (1941); 36 H. 231 (1942); 37 H. 189 (1945); 38 H. 245
(1948); 39 H. 221 (1952).
Voluntary confession, made without inducement of fear or
hope, is entitled to much weight. 1 H. 81 (1851).
Previous statement in writing, admissibility. 3 H. 166
(1869), questioned on other grounds. 9 H. 548, 549 (1894).
Error to reject evidence of inducement by person whom accused
might regard as having authority. 3 H. 313 (1871).
Admission induced by promise of being "clear" held
admissible. 10 H. 94 (1895).
Comment by court on voluntary nature of admission. 30 H. 697
(1929); 42 H. 367 (1958).
Detention, violation of "48-hour" law, failure to
take promptly before magistrate. 43 H. 347 (1959); 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365
(1962); 48 H. 204, 397 P.2d 558 (1964).
Court's ruling on admissibility was not in error. 44 H. 71,
351 P.2d 1097 (1960).
Ruling conclusive if supported by more than a mere scintilla
of evidence. 44 H. 352, 354 P.2d 986 (1960); 44 H. 403, 354 P.2d 960 (1960);
47 H. 158, 385 P.2d 830 (1963).
Voluntary confession is admissible when confession and
independent evidence together establish corpus delicti. 44 H. 352, 354 P.2d
986 (1960); 45 H. 269, 367 P.2d 81 (1961).
Effect of voluntariness: mental instability, amnesia. 44 H.
403, 354 P.2d 960 (1960).
Effect of unlawful search and seizure on confession. 45 H.
622, 372 P.2d 365 (1962); 48 H. 204, 397 P.2d 558 (1964).
Scope of preliminary examination on voluntariness where there
are several co-defendants. 46 H. 183, 377 P.2d 728 (1962).
Finding of admissibility not disturbed without showing of
clear abuse of discretion. 51 H. 260, 457 P.2d 505 (1969).
Statute applies only to confession of defendant on trial, not
to confession of co-defendant. 53 H. 574, 499 P.2d 678 (1972).
No error in admitting statement where there is more than a
scintilla of evidence supporting trial court's ruling that statement was
voluntarily made. 58 H. 323, 568 P.2d 1200 (1977).
Voluntariness hearing is also a constitutional right. 61 H.
198, 600 P.2d 1142 (1979).
Where in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence,
circuit court concluded that coercive conduct of a private person, i.e., a
coach, was sufficient to render defendant's confession inadmissible under this
section, supreme court affirmed addressing constitutional issues. 77 H. 51,
881 P.2d 538 (1994).
The language of §641-13(7), which allows the prosecution to
appeal from "a pretrial order granting a motion for the suppression of
evidence", includes within its scope the right to appeal from a trial
court's voluntariness determination mandated by this section. 104 H. 224, 87
P.3d 893 (2004).
Trial judge has duty to determine admissibility of
inculpatory statement prior to jury's exposure to such evidence. 1 H. App.
221, 617 P.2d 98 (1980).
Cited: 39 H. 141, 145 (1951).
See 3 H. 30 (1867); 3 H. 237 (1870); 16 H. 267 (1904); 21 H.
214 (1912); 38 H. 609 (1950).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bowe, 881 P.2d 538 (Haw. 1994).
State v. Bowe, 881 P.2d 538 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 66× “In granting Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, the circuit court concluded that the coercive conduct of Wallace was sufficient to render Defendant's confession inadmissible under HRS § 621-26 (1985). We agree and affirm.”
State v. Naititi, 87 P.3d 893 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 44× “On the merits, we hold that Naititi's "confession" was "voluntarily made" for purposes of HRS § 621-26 and that his right to Miranda warnings had not ripened as of the time he "confessed" because, although Naititi was clearly "in custody," Detective Lavarias had not yet…”
State v. Joseph, 128 P.3d 795 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 16× “Because Joseph's statement was not voluntarily made, but rather resulted from *805 [defense counsel's] ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court also makes an affirmative finding that it is inadmissible pursuant to HRS § 621-26. [ [4] ] This finding of inadmissibility…”
State v. Hewitt., 526 P.3d 558 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 8× “The ICA also held, however, that the district court erred by overruling Hewitt’s HRS § 621-26 (1993)6 trial objection and (1) Mopeds; (2) Motorcycles and motor scooters; (3) Passenger cars of any gross vehicle weight rating, buses designed to transport fifteen or fewer…”
State v. Hewitt., 481 P.3d 713 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “We hold that the district court did not err by denying Hewitt's motion to suppress her statement, but did err by overruling Hewitt's HRS § 621-26 trial objection and failing to conduct a hearing on the voluntariness of her statement.”
State v. Martin. ICA s.d.o., filed 03/29/2019., 463 P.3d 1022 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 4× “At the voluntariness hearing, Martin testified that he did not recall making any 4 HRS § 621-26 (1993) provides: No confession shall be received in evidence unless it is first made to appear to the judge before whom the case is being tried that the confession was in fact…”
State v. Baker., 465 P.3d 860 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Tokita began the interrogation by asking Baker several introductory 4 HRS § 621-26 (1993) provides as follows: “No confession shall be received in evidence unless it is first made to appear to the judge before whom the case is being tried that the confession was in fact…”
State v. Goers, 600 P.2d 1142 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Citing Jackson and HRS § 621-26, 1 we held in State v. Green that “the trial judge has a duty to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory statement out of the presence of the jury and prior to the jury’s exposure to such evidence.”
State v. Green, 457 P.2d 505 (Haw. 1969).
· cites it 4× “In order to effectuate this duty, the trial judge is vested with wide discretion to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence in order to ascertain whether the prerequisites to admissibility are present.”
State v. Wakinekona, 499 P.2d 678 (Haw. 1972).
· cites it 4× “The argument that HRS § 621-26 requires such a hearing is without merit.”
State v. Pahio, 568 P.2d 1200 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 2× “368 (1964); HRS § 621-26. In order to effectuate this duty, the trial judge is vested with wide discretion to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence in order to ascertain whether the prerequisites to admissibility are present.”
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.