Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 704
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 704-405 (2026)

  Determination of fitness to proceed

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

     §704-405  Determination of fitness to proceed.  When the defendant's fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.  If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 704-404, the court may make the determination on the basis of such report.  If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue.  When the report is received in evidence upon such hearing, the party who contests the finding thereof shall have the right to summon and to cross-examine the persons who joined in the report or assisted in the examination and to offer evidence upon the issue. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]

 

COMMENTARY ON §704-405

 

  This section departs from the prior law[1] and provides that the issue of the defendant's fitness to proceed will be determined solely by the court.  In this the Code follows the Model Penal Code.[2]  The fitness of the defendant to proceed is only tangentially related to the defendant's condition at the time of the conduct alleged and the defendant's responsibility for that conduct.  Moreover, there might be several periodic hearings on the question of the defendant's fitness to be proceeded against.  It seems unwise to afford the defendant a jury determination in each instance.

  The Code also allows the court to make a determination of fitness to proceed on the basis of an uncontested report; which is in accord with prior law in felony cases.[3]  The last sentence of this section allows a limited exception to the hearsay rule so that the report of an examining expert may be received in evidence without the necessity of calling the expert to the stand.  The exception is not inconsistent with the purpose of the hearsay rule because the defendant is assured of the right to summon and to cross-examine the reporting examiner if the defendant wishes.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Fitness to Proceed:  Compassion or Prejudice?  II HBJ, no. 13, at 135 (1998).

 

Case Notes

 

  Consideration of the sanity commission report is permissible use of hearsay.  63 H. 186, 623 P.2d 881 (1981).

  Where defendant's counsel declined to call and cross-examine the doctors who prepared the sanity report, counsel waived defendant's right of confrontation.  63 H. 186, 623 P.2d 881 (1981).

  Cited:  60 H. 17, 586 P.2d 1028 (1978).

 

__________

§704-405 Commentary:

 

1.  H.R.S. §711-91.

 

2.  M.P.C. §4.06.

 

3.  See H.R.S. §711-91, which reads in part:  "If the court deems such report conclusive of the then present insanity... of the accused, the court may allow a nolle prosequi to be entered in the case, and in such case shall forthwith, without other or further proceedings, adjudge the accused to be insane and commit him to the state hospital until discharged as provided by law...."

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: State v. Kotis, 984 P.2d 78 (Haw. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kotis, 984 P.2d 78 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 6× “In a written order filed on February 17,1994, the circuit court found Kotis unfit to proceed to trial, pursuant to HRS § 704-405 (1993), 5 and therefore suspended the proceedings pursuant to HRS § 704-406 (1993).”
State v. Tierney, 277 P.3d 251 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 8× “HRS § 704-405 (1993) states in part: [W]hen [Petitioner]'s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.”
State v. Tyrrell, 586 P.2d 1028 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 4× “The procedure upon receipt of the report is provided by HRS § 704-405. If there is no dispute as to the finding of the panel, the court may determine the defendant’s competency on the basis of the report.”
State v. Soares, 916 P.2d 1233 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “HRS § 704-405 (1993) 8 provides that the trial court shall determine a defendant’s fitness to proceed.”
State v. Alo, 558 P.2d 1012 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 4× “[2] See also HRS § 704-405 (1975 Special Supp.); 1973 House Journal, Stand.”
State v. Janto, 986 P.2d 306 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “] HRS § 704-405 (1993) provides that, “[w]hen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.”
State v. Castro, 5 P.3d 414 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 4× “Moreover, pursuant to HRS § 704-405 (1993), "[wjhen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in[to] question, the issue shall be determined by the [trial] court.”
State v. Madden, 33 P.3d 549 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “HRS § 704-405 (1993). If the court determines that a defendant is not fit to proceed, the proceeding against the defendant shall be suspended, except as provided in section 704-407, and the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the director of health to be placed in…”
State v. Samuel, 838 P.2d 1374 (Haw. 1992). “Furthermore, HRS § 704-410(1) (1985) (emphasis added) provides that: At the hearing pursuant to section 704-405 or upon trial, the examiners who reported pursuant to section 704-A04 may be called as witnesses by the prosecution, the defendant, or the court.”
State v. Castro, 5 P.3d 444 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 704-405 [(1993)] Determination of fitness to proceed.”
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.