Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-52 (2026)

Scope of argument

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§635-52 Scope of argument. [(a)] At the close of the evidence (unless the court directs a verdict, or orders entry of a judgment of acquittal), the respective parties, or their counsel, shall be entitled to sum up the facts to the jury. In their addresses to the jury they shall be allowed ample scope and latitude for argument upon, and illustration of[,] any and all facts involved in the cause, and the evidence tending to either prove or disprove the same. They shall not be forbidden to argue the law of the case to the jury, but they shall not assume to instruct the jury upon the law, in such manner as to encroach upon the function of the court to so instruct the jury.

[(b)] In all actions for damages for personal injuries or death the parties or their counsel shall be entitled to argue the extent of damages claimed or disputed in terms of suggested formulas for the computation of damages or by way of other illustration, and shall be entitled to state in argument the amount of damages the party believes appropriate. [L 1892, c 56, §8; RL 1925, §2425; RL 1935, §3741; RL 1945, §10121; RL 1955, §231-21; am L 1967, c 241, §1; HRS §635-52; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(m)]

Case Notes

Background of last paragraph [subsection (b)], see 47 H. 408, 390 P.2d 740 (1964); 48 H. 22, 395 P.2d 365 (1964).

Counsel in argument may suggest lump sum amount for general damages and also may suggest fragmented segments of lump sum amounts if borne out by the evidence. 50 H. 89, 431 P.2d 931 (1967).

Counsel may make formula arguments for damages in personal injury cases. 51 H. 383, 463 P.2d 917 (1969).

Cited for rule that the court finds the law and instructs the jury thereon, including law of a treaty. 54 H. 450, 509 P.2d 1095 (1973).

Where defendant sought to draw adverse inference from the failure by the prosecution to present a witness, prosecution was entitled to explain the nonproduction. 57 H. 150, 552 P.2d 357 (1976).

On issue of amount of damages for violation of Fourth Amendment rights, plaintiff may argue the history of that Amendment to support plaintiff's claim. 57 H. 390, 557 P.2d 1334 (1976).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1969–2009 · leading case: Lauer v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Honolulu, 557 P.2d 1334 (Haw. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lauer v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Honolulu, 557 P.2d 1334 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 6× “] HRS § 635-52 (Supp. 1975) provides: § 635-52 Scope of argument.”

Barretto v. Akau, 463 P.2d 917 (Haw. 1969). · cites it 4× “] The defendant contends that the statutory authority upon which Marlene’s attorney relies, HRS § 635-52, 1 is an unconstitutional legislative incursion into the judicial function and thereby violates the principle of separation of powers embodied in the State Constitution.”

Stanley v. State, 206 P.3d 471 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “[7] HRS § 635-52 provides, in relevant part: Scope of argument.”

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.