§805-1 Complaint; form of warrant.
When a complaint is made to any prosecuting officer of the commission of any
offense, the prosecuting officer shall review the evidence, reduce the
substance of the complaint to writing, and cause the complaint to be:
(1) Subscribed by the complainant under oath, which
the prosecuting officer is hereby authorized to administer;
(2) Made by declaration in accordance with the rules
of court; or
(3) Signed by the prosecuting officer.
If the original complaint results from the
issuance of a traffic summons or a citation in lieu of an arrest pursuant to
section 803-6, by a police officer, the oath may be administered by any police
officer whose name has been submitted to the prosecuting officer and who has
been designated by the chief of police to administer the oath, or the complaint
may be submitted by declaration in accordance with the rules of court. Upon
presentation of the written complaint to the judge in whose circuit the offense
allegedly has been committed, the judge shall issue a warrant, reciting the
complaint and requiring the sheriff, or other officer to whom it is directed,
except as provided in section 805-3, to arrest the accused and to bring the
accused before the judge to be dealt with according to law; and in the same
warrant the judge may require the officer to summon such witnesses as are named
in the warrant to appear and give evidence at the trial. The warrant may be in
the form established by the usage and practice of the issuing court. [L 1892, c
57, §18; RL 1925, §4007; RL 1935, §5470; am L 1941, c 64, §1; RL 1945, §10770;
RL 1955, §257-1; am L 1959, c 184, §1; am L 1963, c 85, §3; HRS §710-1; am L
1970, c 188, §36; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1978, c 227, §1; am L 1989, c
211, §10; am L 1990, c 281, §11; gen ch 1993; am L 1998, c 36, §3; am L 2007, c
13, §2; am L 2022, c 2, §1]
Rules of Court
Application for arrest warrant, see HRPP rule 3.
Obtaining the appearance of defendant, see HRPP rule 9.
Case Notes
See 49 H. 404, 420 P.2d 100 (1966).
Notes of Decisions
State v. Mortensen-Young., 526 P.3d 362 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 189× “In its opening brief, the State contends, inter alia, that “[t]he district court erred in concluding that the charging instruments in these cases were required to comply with HRS § 805-1 and thus erred in dismissing these charging instruments on the grounds that they did not…”
State v. Thompson., 500 P.3d 447 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 60× “3 Second, because the complaint was deficient, the family court lacked probable 3 HRS § 805-1 (2014) provides: Complaint; form of warrant.”
State v. Thompson., 464 P.3d 906 (Haw. App. 2020).
· cites it 49× “ion in accordance with the rules of court, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 805-1;2/ (2) no affidavit in support of the Complaint was provided to Thompson at the time of his arraignment, in violation of Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 5(b)(1);3/ and…”
State v. Primo, 529 P.3d 708 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 44× “HRS § 805-1 is concerned with cases where the prosecution seeks an arrest warrant or penal summons contemporaneously with the filing of a complaint.”
State v. Latu (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 33× “3d 447, 452-53 (2021), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that failure to comply with HRS § 805-1 renders a complaint "fatally defective," and that such a complaint cannot be used to support the issuance of an arrest warrant or penal summons.”
State v. Yokota, 555 P.3d 671 (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 27× “3 The previous version of HRS § 805-1 (2014) in effect at the time Yokota was charged, required that a complaint requesting issuance of a warrant for the accused, must either be "subscribed by the complainant under oath," or "made by declaration in accordance with the rules of…”
State v. Trulock (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 18× “The Notice and Objection further stated in part: Defendant objects to the fatally defective complaint against him and will not be appearing in any further proceedings in this matter until such time as: the prosecution dismisses this case; files a complaint that complies with HRS…”
State v. Ramseyer, 527 P.3d 478 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 13× “(2) the District Court erred in denying Ramseyer's motion to suppress the results of the SFST because the medical rule-out questions constituted "custodial interrogation"; (3) the District Court erred in denying her motion for new trial due to fundamental fairness; (4) the…”
State v. Nguyen, 528 P.3d 257 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “Thompson where the complaint did not meet the requirements of HRS § 805-1"; and (3) the "arraignment on the fatally defective Complaint was a nullity and violated [Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)] Rules 5(b) and 10(a).”
State v. Morikawa, 528 P.3d 963 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “Thompson[3] where the [C]omplaint did not meet the requirements of HRS § 805-1"; (2) the District Court "failed to engage Morikawa in a colloquy prior to his testimony to ensure that his waiver of his right not to testify was knowing, intelligent and voluntary"; (3) the District…”
State v. Kaneshiro (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “Thompson where the complaint did not meet the requirements of HRS § 805-1";4 (2) the District Court erred in "denying [Kaneshiro]'s motion to suppress his responses to the [medical rule-out (MRO)] questions and all evidence and statements that followed as the 'fruit of the…”
State v. Vitti, 533 P.3d 239 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “3d 447, 452 (2021), because the Complaint was not supported by the complainant's signature, or a declaration in lieu of signature pursuant to HRS § 805-1 (2014).4 2 (...continued) to section 709-906(4), during the effective period of that order.”
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.