Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 844D
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130 (2026)

] Successive motions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     [§844D-130]  Successive motions.  (a)  If the defendant has filed a prior motion for DNA testing under this part or any other provision of law, the defendant may file, and the court shall adjudicate, a successive motion or motions under this part; provided that the defendant asserts new or different grounds for relief, including but not limited to factual, scientific, or legal arguments not previously presented, or the availability of more advanced DNA technology.

     (b)  The court may also, in its discretion, adjudicate any successive motions if the interests of justice so require. [L 2005, c 112, pt of §1]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2016–2016 · leading case: Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016). “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2016). The Hawaii statute, like Vermont’s statute, permits consideration of "successive motions if the interests of justice so require.”
Jamison v. State, 148 A.3d 1267 (Md. 2016). “); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2005); Idaho Code Ann.”
Jackson v. State (Md. 2016). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2016). The Hawaii statute, like Vermont’s statute, permits consideration of “successive motions if the interests of justice so require.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130(a): 3 cases
Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016). “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2016). The Hawaii statute, like Vermont’s statute, permits consideration of "successive motions if the interests of justice so require.”
Jamison v. State, 148 A.3d 1267 (Md. 2016). “); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2005); Idaho Code Ann.”
Jackson v. State (Md. 2016). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 844D-130(a) (2016). The Hawaii statute, like Vermont’s statute, permits consideration of “successive motions if the interests of justice so require.”
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.