§706-666 Definition of proof of conviction.
(1) An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant
committed a crime constitutes a conviction for purposes of sections 706-606.5,
706-662, and 706-665, although sentence or the execution thereof was suspended,
provided that the defendant was not pardoned on the ground of innocence.
(2) Prior conviction may be proved by any
evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest,
conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies the court that the
defendant was convicted. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1982, c 246, §1]
COMMENTARY ON §706-666
Section 706-666 is addressed to the problems of the
definition and proof of former convictions. The Code takes the position that,
in determining whether the defendant is a persistent offender, conviction per
se is sufficient provided the time for appeal has expired and the defendant has
not been pardoned on the ground of innocence. The fact that the disposition of
the defendant resulted in a suspended sentence or a suspended execution of a
sentence should not be held material for purposes of extended terms.
Subsection (2) provides for a non-restrictive approach to
admitting evidence on prior convictions. Since (1) the evidence relied upon is
largely official records, (2) the issue is tried to the court, and (3) the
court is not compelled to find the defendant a persistent offender, or to
impose an extended term even if the minimal requirements are established, no
sound purpose would be served by adopting a restrictive evidentiary approach.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §706-666
Act 246, Session Laws 1982, clarified the definition of a
conviction by providing that an adjudication by a court of competent
jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction.
Case Notes
In State v. Kamae, 56 H. 32, 526 P.2d 1200 (1974), the court
held that an appeal in forma pauperis was not frivolous when it sought to raise
the question of whether the trial court's reliance on a pre-sentence diagnosis
and report was sufficient under §706-666(2) to establish that the defendant was
a multiple offender warranting an extended term under §706-662(4). The court
did not reach the ultimate question.
Pre-sentence report held insufficient evidence of prior
conviction. 56 H. 628, 548 P.2d 632 (1976).
With regard to mandatory minimum sentencing as a repeat
offender under §706–606.5, proof of defendant's prior conviction must be found
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not by the court under a "reasonabl[e]
satisf[action]" standard. 136 H. 244, 361 P.3d 471 (2015).
Evidence of defendant's prior conviction reasonably satisfied
the court. 9 H. App. 583, 854 P.2d 238 (1993).
State presented sufficient evidence to show that defendant
was a repeat offender under §291E-61, where the State introduced: (1) a case
detail report, certified by a district court clerk, that showed that the
district court accepted the no contest plea of defendant to a previous charge
under §291E-61, that defendant was sentenced, and that a "judgment and
notice" was filed; and (2) a traffic abstract for defendant, certified by
a district court clerk, that also showed the same information reflected in the
case detail report. 134 H. 280 (App.), 339 P.3d 1081 (2014).
Where State's evidence showed that a person with the same
name, residence address, date of birth, and last four digits of the social
security number as defendant, with a similar appearing signature as defendant,
and whose prior traffic convictions were included in defendant's abstract, was
previously convicted under §291E-61, there was sufficient evidence to show that
defendant was the person previously convicted. 134 H. 280 (App.), 339 P.3d
1081 (2014).
Cited: 133 H. 102, 324 P.3d 912 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1979–2018 · leading case:
State v. Heggland, 193 P.3d 341 (Haw. 2008).
State v. Heggland, 193 P.3d 341 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 35× “Although the ICA noted that it was considering the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of HRS § 134-7, where a prior felony conviction was an element of the offense, rather than HRS § 706-666 and HRS § 706-606.5, id. at 650 n.”
State v. Davis., 324 P.3d 912 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Thus, 57 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** it is contended that there was insufficient evidence to identify Davis as the person convicted in the Judgment of Conviction. A “[p]rior conviction may be proved by any evidence .”
State v. Tran, 378 P.3d 1014 (Haw. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Act 202 amended HRS § 706-666(1) so that it now provides: “Persons under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offense who are convicted of first degree murder or first degree attempted murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.”
State v. Rodrigues, 706 P.2d 1293 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 4× “It is ostensibly defined for present purposes by HRS § 706-666(1) (Supp. 1984), which reads: An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction for purposes of sections 706-606.”
State v. Buffalo, 674 P.2d 1014 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “5 The prosecution argues that HRS § 706-666 does not require a judgment of conviction as proof of a prior conviction.”
State v. Freitas, 602 P.2d 914 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 2× “No complaint is made by the defendants that they did not have adequate time to prepare for the hearings. Proof of prior conviction may consist of “any evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest, conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies…”
State v. Kam, 339 P.3d 1081 (Haw. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 706-666(2) (1993) provides that a “[p]rior conviction may be proved by any evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest, conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies the court that the defendant was convicted.”
State v. Drozdowski, 854 P.2d 238 (Haw. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 706-666(2) (1985) authorizes that, for purposes of HRS §§ 706-606.”
State v. Sinagoga, 918 P.2d 228 (Haw. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 706-666 Definition of proof of conviction.”
State v. Auld., 361 P.3d 471 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Lastly, we note that our holding affects HRS § 706-666 (2014), titled, “Definition of proof of conviction.”
State v. Nishi, 852 P.2d 476 (Haw. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 706-666 (1985) (emphases added). The supreme court has stated that “the fact of [the defendant’s] prior conviction must be established by satisfactory evidence[.”
State v. TIA, 234 P.3d 695 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to HRS § 706-666(2) (1993), "[p]rior conviction may be proved by any evidence.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-666(1) — 2 cases
State v. Tran, 378 P.3d 1014 (Haw. App. 2016).
“Act 202 amended HRS § 706-666(1) so that it now provides: “Persons under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offense who are convicted of first degree murder or first degree attempted murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.”
State v. Rodrigues, 706 P.2d 1293 (Haw. 1985).
“It is ostensibly defined for present purposes by HRS § 706-666(1) (Supp. 1984), which reads: An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction for purposes of sections 706-606.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-666(2) — 6 cases
State v. Heggland, 193 P.3d 341 (Haw. 2008).
“Although the ICA noted that it was considering the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of HRS § 134-7, where a prior felony conviction was an element of the offense, rather than HRS § 706-666 and HRS § 706-606.5, id. at 650 n.”
State v. Davis., 324 P.3d 912 (Haw. 2014).
“Thus, 57 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** it is contended that there was insufficient evidence to identify Davis as the person convicted in the Judgment of Conviction. A “[p]rior conviction may be proved by any evidence .”
State v. Freitas, 602 P.2d 914 (Haw. 1979).
“No complaint is made by the defendants that they did not have adequate time to prepare for the hearings. Proof of prior conviction may consist of “any evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest, conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies…”
State v. Kam, 339 P.3d 1081 (Haw. App. 2014).
“HRS § 706-666(2) (1993) provides that a “[p]rior conviction may be proved by any evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest, conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies the court that the defendant was convicted.”
State v. Drozdowski, 854 P.2d 238 (Haw. App. 1993).
“HRS § 706-666(2) (1985) authorizes that, for purposes of HRS §§ 706-606.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-666(2)(1993) — 1 case
State v. Heggland, 193 P.3d 341 (Haw. 2008).
“Although the ICA noted that it was considering the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of HRS § 134-7, where a prior felony conviction was an element of the offense, rather than HRS § 706-666 and HRS § 706-606.5, id. at 650 n.”
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.