§704-408 Determination of irresponsibility.
If the report of the examiners filed pursuant to section 704-404, or the report
of examiners of the defendant's choice under section 704-409, states that the
defendant at the time of the conduct alleged was affected by a physical or
mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially impaired the defendant's
capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to
conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law, the court shall
submit the defense of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect to the
jury or the trier of fact at the trial of the charge against the defendant. [L
1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1980, c 222, §1(3); gen ch 1993; am L 2006, c 230, §9]
COMMENTARY ON §704-408
This section provides for the direct qualified acquittal of
the defendant when the report filed pursuant to §704-404 satisfies the court
that at the time of the conduct alleged the defendant suffered from a physical
or mental disease, disorder, or defect which precluded responsibility. A
hearing shall be had on the issue of the defendant's responsibility if it is
requested by either party or the court. If the court is satisfied on the basis
of the report or the hearing or both that the defendant should not be held
responsible for the conduct alleged, it shall, upon motion by the defendant,
acquit the defendant. Thus, a trial in such cases will be avoided. If the
defendant maintains that the defendant did not engage in the conduct alleged,
or has a defense in addition to that excluding responsibility, the defendant
can, of course, withhold the motion and the case will proceed to trial.
The section changes the prior law in that it vests the power
of direct acquittal in the court and does not make it dependent on
prosecutorial discretion.[1]
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §704-408
Act 222, Session Laws 1980, amended the section to require
the submission of the insanity defense to the trier of fact at the trial. The
intent was to eliminate bifurcated trials on the insanity defense and to have
all factual issues, including insanity, heard at one trial. Conference
Committee Report No. 38-80 (72-80).
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, made technical nonsubstantive
amendments to this section.
Case Notes
Where defendant is unfit to proceed, §704-406 requires
suspension of the proceedings, and a motion for judgment of acquittal will be
deferred. 61 H. 313, 602 P.2d 944 (1979).
Discussion of standard by which motion for judgment of
acquittal is to be determined. 62 H. 325, 614 P.2d 925 (1980).
Does not authorize court to bar the presentation to the jury
of the issue of penal irresponsibility. 66 H. 300, 660 P.2d 33 (1983).
Application of section to multiple personality syndrome. 67
H. 70, 679 P.2d 615 (1984).
__________
§704-408 Commentary:
1. See H.R.S. §711-91, which provides in part: "If the
court deems such report conclusive of the... mental irresponsibility 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
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case:
State v. Rodrigues, 679 P.2d 615 (Haw. 1984).
State v. Rodrigues, 679 P.2d 615 (Haw. 1984).
· cites it 50× “The testimony introduced by the defense addressed the fact that under HRS § 704-408, a defendant will be relieved of criminal responsibility if at the time of the alleged conduct the defendant suffered from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which substantially impaired his…”
State v. Glenn., 468 P.3d 126 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 31× “1 When, after a mental evaluation, an examiner opines that the defendant lacked penal responsibility, HRS § 704-408 (2019) 2 provides that the court “shall” instruct the jury on the penal-responsibility defense.”
State v. Miller, 933 P.2d 606 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 10× “” Commentary to HRS § 704-408 (1976). Therefore, in filing the motion for acquittal by reason of insanity, Miller conceded that he engaged in the criminal behavior.”
State v. Freitas, 608 P.2d 408 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 6× “At issue is whether the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for judgment of acquittal made pursuant to HRS § 704-408 which provides: If the report of the examiners filed pursuant to section 704-404 states that the defendant at the time of the conduct alleged…”
State v. Summers, 614 P.2d 925 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Appellant first contends that the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial motion for judgment of acquittal made pursuant to HRS § 704-408. 1 We find, however, that the testimony adduced at the hearing on this motion gave the trial court sufficient reasons to deny…”
State v. Janto, 986 P.2d 306 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 2× “" HRS § 704-408 (1993) provides: If the report of the examiners filed pursuant to section 704-404, or the report of examiners of the defendant’s choice under section 704-409, states that the defendant at the time of the conduct alleged suffered from a physical or mental disease,…”
State v. Castro, 5 P.3d 444 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§ 704-408 [(1993)] Determination of irresponsibility.”
State v. Hall, 660 P.2d 33 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 5× “(2) Did the court below err in denying appellant’s motion for acquittal pursuant to § 704-408, HRS. We answer no. (3) Did the court below err in ruling that appellant would be barred from presenting at trial the issue of non-responsibility based upon Chapter 704, HRS.”
State v. Lee, 602 P.2d 944 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 4× “On the basis of this report, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal, pursuant to HRS § 704-408 which provides: § 704=408. Determination of irresponsibility.”
Rodrigues v. Hawaii, 469 U.S. 1078 (1985).
“Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. §704-408 (1976), the trial court suspended preliminary proceedings, appointed a panel of three psychiatrists to examine the defendant, and proceeded to try the issue of insanity.”
State v. Ard, 539 P.3d 946 (Haw. App. 2023).
“" Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §§ 704-408 (1993), 704-411 (Supp. 1997). The circuit court committed Ard "to the custody of the Director of the Department of Health to be placed in an appropriate institution 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER for…”
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.