§806-8 Prosecution where indictment not
essential. In criminal cases brought in the first instance in a court of
record, but in which the accused may be held to answer without an indictment by
a grand jury, the legal prosecutor may arraign and prosecute the accused upon
an information, complaint, or an indictment at the prosecutor's election; and
in all criminal cases brought in the first instance in a court of record the
prosecutor may arraign and prosecute the accused by information, complaint, or
indictment, as the case may be, whether there has been a previous examination,
or commitment for trial by a judge, or not. [L 1903, c 39, §3; RL 1925, §4019;
RL 1935, §5492; RL 1945, §10793; RL 1955, §258-4; HRS §711-8; am L 1970, c 188,
§39; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1991, c 147, §3]
Cross References
See Const. art. I, §10.
Use of indictment or information, see §§801-1, 806-6.
Rules of Court
Indictment, information, or complaint, see HRPP rule 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case:
State v. Obrero., 517 P.3d 755 (Haw. 2022).
State v. Obrero., 517 P.3d 755 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 10× “10 HRS § 806-8 says: In criminal cases brought in the first instance in a court of record, but in which the accused may be held to answer without an indictment by a grand jury, the legal prosecutor may arraign and prosecute the accused upon an information, complaint, or an…”
State v. Metcalfe., 297 P.3d 1062 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 6× “[HRS § 806-8 4 ] contemplates I think a situation where the—the prosecution if they don’t like, you know, what the judge does at a preliminary examination, then they’re free to go back and—and seek an indictment from a grand jury.”
State v. Milo, 499 P.3d 418 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “3d 319, 321, 328-29 (2015) (defendant charged by complaint and bailed in district court 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER bound over to circuit court upon his demand for a jury trial where bail evidently continued and was then increased); see…”
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.