Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-27 (2026)

Examination for cause

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§635-27 Examination for cause. Each party shall have the right, under the direction of the court, to examine a proposed juror as to the proposed juror's qualifications, interest, or bias that would affect the trial of the cause and as to any matter that might tend to affect the proposed juror's verdict. Each party may introduce competent evidence to show the disqualification, interest, or bias of any juror. [L 1905, c 5, §1; RL 1925, §2416; am L 1931, c 294, §1; RL 1935, §3734; RL 1945, §10110; RL 1955, §231-10; HRS §635-27; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(h); gen ch 1985]

Cross References

Grounds for disqualification, see §§612-4 and 612-5.

Rules of Court

See HRCP rule 47(a); HRPP rule 24(a).

Case Notes

Prospective juror must be challenged for cause before juror is sworn. 5 H. 634 (1886).

Statement of juror though not sworn may be relied upon. 9 H. 622 (1895).

Refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause may result in reversible error. 23 H. 792 (1917).

Examination of prospective jurors upon voir dire party entitled to ask questions which will aid judge in determining whether juror should be excused for cause and also, within reasonable limits, all questions which may enlighten attorney upon question whether attorney should exercise peremptory challenges. 32 H. 543 (1932).

Court's refusal to allow voir dire inquiries into specific possible prejudices of prospective jurors upheld as within discretion. 57 H. 492, 559 P.2d 728 (1977).

Cited: 20 H. 7, 15 (1910).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 24× “Both counsels objected to the court's proposed procedure on the grounds that (1) HRS § 635-27 (1993), pertaining to a party's right to examine potential jurors, see infra, gives each party the right to examine potential jurors for cause and (2) this court, in State v.”

State v. Carvalho, 880 P.2d 217 (Haw. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “" HRS § 635-27 (1985). A peremptory challenge is ”[t]he right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge.”

Kaowili v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 727 P.2d 67 (Haw. 1986). · cites it 2× “HRS § 635-27 provides as follows: Examination for cause.”

State v. Birano, 126 P.3d 370 (Haw. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” HRS § 635-27 [(1993)]. A peremptory challenge is “[t]he right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge.”

State v. Lafoga (Haw. 2023). “]” Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 635-27 (emphasis added). A prospective juror’s name is essential for examining a prospective jurors’ “qualifications, interest, or bias.”

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.