§804-9 Amount. The amount of bail
rests in the discretion of the justice or judge or the officers named in
section 804-5 and shall be set in a reasonable amount based upon all available
information, including the offense alleged, the possible punishment upon
conviction, and the defendant's financial ability to afford bail. The bail
amount should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy to escape by the
payment of a pecuniary penalty, nor to render the privilege useless to the
poor. [PC 1869, c 50, §6; RL 1925, §3984; am imp L 1933, c 30, §1; RL 1935,
§5438; RL 1945, §10739; RL 1955, §256-9; HRS §709-9; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1;
am L 2019, c 179, §20]
Cross References
See Const. art. I, §12.
Case Notes
Section means no more than that bail shall be in a reasonable
amount, considering the financial status of defendant and the possible
punishment. 56 H. 447, 539 P.2d 1197 (1975).
No abuse of discretion in setting bail at $75 for person
arrested for simple trespass. 64 H. 130, 637 P.2d 1105 (1981).
Since §804-5 provides chief of police or designee with
independent authority and discretion to admit persons charged with misdemeanor
offenses to bail in accordance with this section, senior judge of family court
lacked authority to issue a bail schedule divesting police of that authority
and discretion. 75 H. 357, 861 P.2d 1205 (1993).
Trial court abused its discretion by not tailoring bail to
defendant's individual circumstances, pending appeal of defendant's conviction,
where: (1) bail was initially set at $200 when defendant was facing the
possibility of one year in jail, but trial court increased bail amount to
$2,000 cash only after ultimately sentencing defendant to thirty days'
imprisonment; (2) defendant was nineteen years of age and determined by trial
court to be indigent; (3) trial court raised defendant's bail simply because
defendant was a recent arrival to Hawaii; (4) the increase in bail was directly
contradicted by trial court's comments that treatment for anger management,
substance abuse, or mental health was not appropriate for defendant; (5) trial
court apparently increased bail amount based on defendant's father's ability to
pay; and (6) there was evidence on the record that trial court improperly used
the maximum amount of the fine applicable to defendant to determine the amount
of bail. 136 H. 471, 363 P.3d 319 (2015).
Cited: 76 H. 219, 873 P.2d 98 (1994).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
State v. Henley., 363 P.3d 319 (Haw. 2015).
State v. Henley., 363 P.3d 319 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 20× “To support its conclusion, the ICA also cited to HRS § 804-9 (2014) for the following language: “The amount of bail rests in the discretion of the justice or judge.”
State v. Visintin., 426 P.3d 367 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Excessive Bail Under HRS § 804-1 (1993), bail is defined as "the signing of the recognizance by the defendant and the defendant's surety or sureties, conditioned for the appearance of the defendant at the session of a court of competent jurisdiction to be named in the condition,…”
Pelekai v. White, 861 P.2d 1205 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 12× “In this particular case, because the charged offense was a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of less than two years, the police had the authority to set the bail for Petitioner.”
State v. Kapoi, 637 P.2d 1105 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 4× “See HRS § 804-9. He contends bail in the sum of $75 for a "violation" when the police found only $44 on him was excessive and could *1112 only have been calculated to deprive him of liberty without due process and to facilitate the seizure of the handgun.”
State v. Nelson, 398 P.3d 712 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 804-9 (2014); Haw. Const, art I, § 12 (“Excessive bail shall not be required.”
Reed v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 873 P.2d 98 (Haw. 1994).
“” Ha-wai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-9 (1985). Appellants have failed to provide any support for their contention that Aim’s request for high bail and his opposition to bail reduction constitutes an established policy or custom of indiscriminately opposing bail reductions.”
State ex rel. Kaneshiro v. Huddy, 921 P.2d 108 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “2d 1205, 1208-11 (1993) (vacating trial judge’s order setting bad in reliance upon an inflexible “bail schedule,” promulgated by the senior judge, which unlawfully divested the trial court of the discretion accorded the bail-setting authority by HRS § 804-9 (1993)); State ex…”
State v. Carter. (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 42× “3 million instead, and by finding that such amount was reasonable, in violation of HRS § 804-9. I. BACKGROUND August 30, 2022 initial bail status in Circuit Court was "no bail" On August 26, 2022, Carter was indicted by the Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State) for five…”
State v. Hau Phan, 444 P.3d 321 (Haw. App. 2019).
· cites it 12× “12 HRS § 804-9 (2014) provides that "[t]he amount of bail rests in the discretion of the justice or judge[.”
State v. Kanoa (Haw. App. 2026).
· cites it 8× “) Here, the Circuit Court complied with the plain language of HRS § 804-9 by expressly considering Kanoa's ability to afford bail: it found that "[Kanoa] has assets sufficient to post monetary bail in the amount of $750,000.”
State v. Blas (Haw. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “at as applied to high-risk defendants like Carter, who was charged 20 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER with serious crimes and presented serious risks, the determination of bail/no-bail is a risk-based analysis pursuant to HRS § 804-3, which is…”
Pitts v. Somerville (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 804-9; Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412 , 557 P.”
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.