§806-47 Bill of particulars. If the
court is of the opinion that the accused in any criminal case has been actually
misled and prejudiced in the accused's defense upon the merits of any defect,
imperfection, or omission in the indictment, insufficient to warrant the
quashing of the indictment, or by any variance, not fatal, between the
allegations and the proof, the prosecuting officer shall, when so ordered by
the court, acting upon its own motion or upon motion of the prosecution or
defendant, file in court and serve upon the defendant, upon such terms as the
court imposes, a bill of particulars of the matters in regard to which the
court finds that the defendant should be informed.
In determining whether further information, and
if so what information, is desirable for the defense of the accused upon the
merits of the case, the court shall consider the whole record of the case and
the entire course of the proceedings against the accused. [L 1915, c 167, §1;
RL 1925, §4023; RL 1935, §5353; RL 1945, §10820; RL 1955, §258-30; HRS §711-47;
ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]
Rules of Court
Bill of particulars, see HRPP rule 7(g).
Case Notes
Cannot cure a defective charge. 41 H. 591 (1957).
Where, in accordance with this section, the family court
considered the whole record of the case and the entire course of the
proceedings against defendant and found that a bill of particulars was
unnecessary because defendant was not actually misled or prejudiced as to the
charges against defendant, and the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss
or for bill of particulars on that basis, the court did not abuse its
discretion. 121 H. 451, 220 P.3d 1032 (2009).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
State v. Corder, 220 P.3d 1032 (Haw. 2009).
State v. Corder, 220 P.3d 1032 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 16× “" HRPP § 7(g) (2007); see also HRS § 806-47 (1993). [7] "A trial court has the discretion to *1035 order a bill of particulars, and it must exercise this discretion in consideration of the purpose of a bill of particulars, which is to help the defendant prepare for trial and to…”
State v. Israel, 890 P.2d 303 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the State argues that Israel’s right to be informed was not violated because Israel could and did seek discovery materials, and because a bill of particulars could have been either requested by Israel pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(d) or…”
State v. Reed, 881 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “2d 941, 943 (1990); HRS § 806-47 (1985). The court’s discretion should be exercised in light of the purposes of a bill of particulars, which is designed “to enable the defendant to prepare for trial and prevent surprise[.”
State v. Vaimili., 353 P.3d 1034 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” Yet, the absence of the identity of the “third person” in the amended complaint, which could have been rectified by a motion for a bill of particulars, see HRS § 806-47 (1993), bears not on whether the State’s use of the disjunctive failed to give Vaimili adequate notice of…”
State v. Valenzona, 992 P.2d 718 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 806-47 (1993) provides: If the court is of the opinion that the accused in any criminal case has been actually misled and prejudiced in the accused’s defense upon the merits of any defect, imperfection, or omission in the indictment, insufficient to warrant the quashing of…”
State v. Salvas, 479 P.3d 924 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “" HRPP § 7(g) (2007); [6] see also HRS § 806-47 (1993).[7] "A trial court has the discretion to order a bill of particulars, and it must exercise this discretion in consideration of the purpose of a bill of particulars, which is to help the defendant prepare for trial and to…”
State v. Corder, 204 P.3d 500 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to HRS § 806-47 (1993), a court may order a bill of particulars under the following circumstances: §806-47 Bill of particulars.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 806-47(1993) — 1 case
State v. Corder, 220 P.3d 1032 (Haw. 2009).
“" HRPP § 7(g) (2007); see also HRS § 806-47 (1993). [7] "A trial court has the discretion to *1035 order a bill of particulars, and it must exercise this discretion in consideration of the purpose of a bill of particulars, which is to help the defendant prepare for trial and to…”
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.