Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 641
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-16 (2026)

  Judgment; no reversal when

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §641-16  Judgment; no reversal when.  [(a)]  The supreme court, or the intermediate appellate court, as the case may be, may affirm, reverse, or modify the order, judgment, or sentence of the trial court in a criminal matter.  It may enter such order, judgment, or sentence, or may remand the case to the trial court for the entry of the same or for such other or further proceedings, as in its opinion the facts and law warrant.  It may correct any error appearing on the record.

     [(b)]  In case of a conviction and sentence in a criminal case, if in its opinion the sentence is illegal or excessive it may correct the sentence to correspond with the verdict or finding or reduce the same, as the case may be.  In case of a sentence to imprisonment for life not subject to parole, the court shall review the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, whether the insufficiency of the evidence is alleged as error or not.  Any order, judgment, or sentence entered by the court may be enforced by it or remitted for enforcement by the trial court.

     [(c)]  No order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or modified unless the court is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.  Nor shall there be a reversal in any criminal case for any defect of form merely in any indictment or information or for any matter held for the benefit of the appellant or for any finding depending on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence.  Except as otherwise provided by the rules of court, there shall be no reversal for any alleged error in the admission or rejection of evidence or the giving of or refusing to give an instruction to the jury unless such alleged error was made the subject of an objection noted at the time it was committed or brought to the attention of the court in another appropriate manner. [L 1892, c 95, §14; RL 1925, §2536; am L 1931, c 42, §2; RL 1935, §3563; RL 1945, §9564; RL 1955, §212-14; am L 1957, c 282, §2; HRS §641-24; am L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; ren HRS §641-16; am L 1979, c 111, §6(5)]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Correction of sentence, see HRPP rule 35.

  Exceptions unnecessary, see HRPP rule 51.

  Harmless error, see HRPP rule 52.

 

Case Notes

 

  Where defendant in a pretrial suppression hearing noted the defendant's objection to introduction of the defendant's inculpatory statement, the defendant's failure to object at trial to reception of the statement did not constitute waiver of the issue on appeal.  61 H. 499, 605 P.2d 935 (1980).

  Circuit court's unlawful use of "struck jury" method to select jury was not plain error.  9 H. App. 578, 855 P.2d 34 (1993).

  Because trial court did not apply appropriate sentencing standards to extended term motion and remand would allow circuit court to reconsider other sentencing alternatives in fashioning an appropriate sentence, modification of sentence was not warranted on appeal.  77 H. 340 (App.), 884 P.2d 403 (1994).

  Modification of sentence on appeal warranted where district court, on resentencing, failed to take into account time defendant already served in prison, amount of fines paid, and community service completed.  82 H. 83 (App.), 919 P.2d 995 (1996).

 

Prejudicial error as requisite.

  No reversal unless error prejudicial, 43 H. 119 (1959); 44 H. 10, 352 P.2d 320 (1959); 45 H. 295, 367 P.2d 499 (1961); 45 H. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962); 46 H. 127, 376 P.2d 125 (1962); 47 H. 185, 199, 389 P.2d 146 (1963); 49 H. 77, 102, 412 P.2d 669 (1966); 49 H. 116, 412 P.2d 662 (1966).  Erroneous instruction presumptively harmful.  49 H. 327, 330, 417 P.2d 638 (1966).  Error that is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt does not mandate reversal of conviction.  57 H. 26, 548 P.2d 1402 (1976).

  For earlier cases see notes to RLH 1955, §§210-1, 212-14.

 

Preservation of error as requisite.

  Questions on appeal must have been raised below.  43 H. 299, 301 (1959); 44 H. 370, 355 P.2d 25 (1960); 45 H. 83, 88, 363 P.2d 964, 967 (1961); 46 H. 475, 485, 382 P.2d 920, 934 (1963); 49 H. 1, 406 P.2d 887 (1965); 49 H. 42, 45, 410 P.2d 976 (1966); 50 H. 253, 438 P.2d 401 (1968).  But see as to fundamental error.  49 H. 504, 421 P.2d 305 (1966); 49 H. 522, 528, 423 P.2d 438 (1967); 50 H. 287, 439 P.2d 666 (1968).  For earlier cases see notes to RLH 1955, §§208-3, 210-1, 212-1, 212-4, 212-8, 212-14.  Though generally judgment will be reversed only on theory presented to trial court, there may be deviations when justice requires.  53 H. 45, 487 P.2d 1070 (1971).  Court has power to notice plain errors not raised at trial if they affect substantial rights.  Specific grounds for objection are required.  56 H. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975).  Objection to admission of evidence is necessary; objection on specific ground is a waiver of all other objections.  57 H. 96, 550 P.2d 900 (1976).

 

Scope of review of factual issues.

  Test on criminal appeals is whether verdict is supported by substantial evidence.  55 H. 1, 514 P.2d 373 (1973).

  See notes to §635-56.  Cited:  47 H. 472, 478, 391 P.2d 403 (1964), note 1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: State v. Rivera, 102 P.3d 1044 (Haw. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rivera, 102 P.3d 1044 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 4× “To the contrary, HRS § 641-16 (1993) expressly states that "[n]o order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or modified unless the court is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." (Emphasis added).”
State v. Toro, 884 P.2d 403 (Haw. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “In his reply brief, however, Defendant maintains that his sentence should be modified “to the ordinary term of five years” by this court, pursuant to HRS § 641-16 (1985). 5 Under a plain reading of HRS § 641-16, an appellate court has the discretion to affirm, reverse, or modify…”
State v. Aplaca, 25 P.3d 792 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 2× “6 To the contrary, HRS § 641-16 (1993) expressly states that “[n]o order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or modified unless the court is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
State v. Taparra, 919 P.2d 995 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “9 The minutes and the representations of both the State and Defendant support the conclusion that when the circuit court ordered that Defendant be “resentenced,” it intended that the resentencing be done in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Still, we need not reach…”
State v. Matias, 550 P.2d 900 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 4× “1975) and HRS § 641-16 (Supp. 1975). We affirm the convictions.”
State v. Estrada, 738 P.2d 812 (Haw. 1987). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 641-16 (1985). State, however, does not dispute the offers of proof were made as represented in the opening brief appendices, so we will consider this question despite Bettencourt’s errors.”
State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 4× “3d 1044, 1064 (2004) ("HRS § 641-16 (1993) expressly states that `[n]o order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or modified unless the court is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
State v. Fox, 760 P.2d 670 (Haw. 1988). · cites it 2× “The provision setting forth the prerequisite of a timely objection to the admission of evidence is found in HRS § 641-16; it reads: Except as otherwise provided by the rules of court, there shall be no reversal for any alleged error in the admission or rejection of evidence or…”
State v. Yamashiro, 817 P.2d 123 (Haw. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “We turn now to the question whether the instruction was plain error. B. Rule 30(e), Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) (1977), provides that the giving or refusing to give an instruction may not be assigned as error unless objected to before the jury retires to 17 consider…”
State v. Austin, 769 P.2d 1098 (Haw. 1989). · cites it 4× “"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Dawson v. Lanham, 488 P.2d 329 (Haw. 1971). · cites it 8× “1955, which is now HRS § 641-16. [2] III. ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONERS The substance of petitioners' argument is that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter when the notice of appeal was filed and that it had no power to amend the order quashing the indictment and…”
State v. Pulawa, 614 P.2d 373 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 2× “HRS § 641-16 [Supp. 1979]. 9 Certainly the “determination of relevancy resting in the discretion of the trial judge, we find no abuse of that discretion.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-16(c) — 1 case
State v. Grewer, 555 P.3d 672 (Haw. App. 2024).
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.