[§806-85] Probable cause. (a) When an
information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the
information and its exhibit to determine whether there is probable cause to
believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed
the offense charged.
(b) A finding of the existence of probable
cause or lack thereof may be based in whole or in part upon hearsay evidence or
upon evidence that may ultimately be ruled to be inadmissible at the trial.
(c) If the court finds that there is probable
cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant
committed the offense charged, the court shall set bail and direct the clerk to
issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
(d) As used in this section, "court
having jurisdiction" and "court" mean the circuit court;
provided that the chief justice may by order authorize district court judges to
make probable cause determinations, set bail, and direct the issuance of arrest
warrants, as provided by this section. [L 2004, c 62, pt of §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case:
State v. King., 386 P.3d 886 (Haw. 2016).
State v. King., 386 P.3d 886 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 806-85(a) (2014). Probable cause determinations are reviewed by this court de novo.”
State v. Ah Puck (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 32× “Ah Puck alternately argues that even if HRS § 806-85 doesn't violate separation-of-powers, the chief justice rescinded the order authorizing district court judges to make probable cause determinations, set bail, and issue arrest warrants.”
State v. Sulenta, 514 P.3d 339 (Haw. App. 2022).
· cites it 10× “" The State argues that HRS §§ 806-85(b)8 and 806-88(b)9 allow the court to rely upon hearsay for both the 8 HRS § 806-85 (2014), entitled "Probable cause," provides in pertinent part: (a) When an information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the information…”
State v. Amasiu, 558 P.3d 1053 (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 806-85(a) (2014) provides that "[w]hen an information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the information and its exhibit to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed the…”
Moana v. Wong. (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The following day, prosecutors charged Moana by felony information, cutting off his right to the continued preliminary hearing two days before it was scheduled to take place.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 806-85(a) — 3 cases
State v. King., 386 P.3d 886 (Haw. 2016).
“” HRS § 806-85(a) (2014). Probable cause determinations are reviewed by this court de novo.”
State v. Ah Puck (Haw. App. 2025).
“Ah Puck alternately argues that even if HRS § 806-85 doesn't violate separation-of-powers, the chief justice rescinded the order authorizing district court judges to make probable cause determinations, set bail, and issue arrest warrants.”
State v. Amasiu, 558 P.3d 1053 (Haw. App. 2024).
“HRS § 806-85(a) (2014) provides that "[w]hen an information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the information and its exhibit to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 806-85(b) — 1 case
State v. Sulenta, 514 P.3d 339 (Haw. App. 2022).
“" The State argues that HRS §§ 806-85(b)8 and 806-88(b)9 allow the court to rely upon hearsay for both the 8 HRS § 806-85 (2014), entitled "Probable cause," provides in pertinent part: (a) When an information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the information…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 806-85(d) — 2 cases
State v. Ah Puck (Haw. App. 2025).
“Ah Puck alternately argues that even if HRS § 806-85 doesn't violate separation-of-powers, the chief justice rescinded the order authorizing district court judges to make probable cause determinations, set bail, and issue arrest warrants.”
State v. Amasiu, 558 P.3d 1053 (Haw. App. 2024).
“HRS § 806-85(a) (2014) provides that "[w]hen an information is filed, the court having jurisdiction shall review the information and its exhibit to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed the…”
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.