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

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 704-415 (2026)

  Disposition of application for discharge, conditional release, or modification of conditions of release

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

     §704-415  Disposition of application for discharge, conditional release, or modification of conditions of release.  (1)  If the court is satisfied from the report filed pursuant to section 704-414, and such testimony of the reporting examiners as the court deems necessary, that:

     (a)  The person is affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect and the discharge, conditional release, or modification of conditions of release applied for may be granted without danger to the committed or conditionally released person or to the person or property of others; or

     (b)  The person is no longer affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect,

the court shall grant the application and order the relief.  If the court is not so satisfied, it shall promptly order a hearing.

     (2)  Any such hearing shall be deemed a civil proceeding and the burden shall be upon the applicant to prove that the person is no longer affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect or may safely be either released on the conditions applied for or discharged.  According to the determination of the court upon the hearing, the person shall be:

     (a)  Discharged;

     (b)  Released on such conditions as the court determines to be necessary; or

     (c)  Recommitted to the custody of the director of health, subject to discharge or release only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 704-412. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1982, c 232, §1; am L 2006, c 230, §14]

 

COMMENTARY ON §704-415

 

  Following the filing of the report pursuant to §704-414, the court may grant the application summarily if it is convinced that it can be granted without danger to the defendant or to the person or property of others.  The Code allows the court some flexibility in taking testimony of examiners without the necessity of a full hearing.  If the testimony of the examiners, in addition to the report, satisfies the court that favorable action on the application is appropriate, it may be granted summarily.  If the court is not satisfied, a full hearing is indicated, following which the court shall make a determination consistent with the danger the committed or conditionally released person presents to oneself and to others.

  The Code takes the position that the burden should remain with the State to prove that the freedom applied for cannot be safely granted.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §704-415

 

  Act 232, Session Laws 1982, shifted from the State to the applicant, the burden to prove that a conditional release, discharge, or modification of condition of release may be safely granted without danger to the person or community following a judgment of acquittal on the grounds of disease, disorder, or defect excluding responsibility.

  Act 230, Session Laws 2006, amended this section, among others, to ensure that the person's physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect is considered in commitment and release provisions.  House Standing Committee Report No. 665-06.

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Determination of whether person may be safely released--standard of proof; nature of evidence.  Att. Gen. Op. 79-5.

  State must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the person may not safely be released.  Att. Gen. Op. 79-5.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Foucha v. Louisiana:  The Keys to the Asylum for Sane But Potentially Dangerous Insanity Acquittees?  15 UH L. Rev. 215 (1993).

 

Case Notes

 

  Section does not violate due process clauses of state and U.S. Constitutions; at release hearing, insanity acquittee bears burden of proving by preponderance of evidence freedom from mental illness and dangerous propensities.  84 H. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997).

  Section does not violate equal protection clauses of state and U.S. Constitutions; State may place burden on insanity acquittee to prove by preponderance of evidence that acquittee should be released.  84 H. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: State v. Miller, 933 P.2d 606 (Haw. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Miller, 933 P.2d 606 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 14× “In Miller, the ICA concluded that “HRS § 704-415’s imposition upon the [insanity acquittee] of the burden of proving his or her lack of mental illness or lack of resulting dangerousness by a preponderance of the evidence” is constitutionally valid.”
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). · cites it 2× “11, § 403(b) (1987) (insanity acquittee shall be kept institutionalized until court "is satisfied that the public safety will not be endangered by his release"); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 704-415 (1985) (insanity acquittee not entitled to release until court satisfied that acquittee…”
State v. Baxley, 73 P.3d 668 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 8× “See HRS § 704-415 (1993). If the court is not satisfied, the court must order a hearing to further consider the defendant's petition.”
State v. Lagrange, 543 P.3d 1089 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “We do not agree with the State's assertion on appeal that the HRE do not apply to a CR revocation hearing, citing HRS § 704-415(2) (application for CR or discharge from CR) and HRS § 706-625(2) (revocation of probation).”
State v. D.B., 544 P.3d 712 (Haw. App. 2024). “had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was free from mental illness and dangerous propensities, or that he may safely be released on the conditions 1 The Honorable Christine E.”
State of Louisiana Versus Jamaal Edwards (La. Ct. App. 2022). “” HRS § 704-415 (2). The Hawaii Supreme Court found that placing the burden of proof on the defendant did not violate their Due Process Rights and requiring them to show, beyond the preponderance of the evidence, that they were not mentally ill or dangerous was constitutional.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 704-415(2) — 2 cases
State v. Lagrange, 543 P.3d 1089 (Haw. App. 2024). “We do not agree with the State's assertion on appeal that the HRE do not apply to a CR revocation hearing, citing HRS § 704-415(2) (application for CR or discharge from CR) and HRS § 706-625(2) (revocation of probation).”
State v. D.B., 544 P.3d 712 (Haw. App. 2024). “had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was free from mental illness and dangerous propensities, or that he may safely be released on the conditions 1 The Honorable Christine E.”
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.