At the outset, we consider whether the Medication Order is an appealable order such that we may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.8 The Hawaii Supreme Court has implicitly held that orders regarding the involuntary medication of a pretrial defendant and orders relating to the release or commitment of a defendant found not guilty based *200 on an insanity defense are appealable orders by exercising appellate jurisdiction over such orders. For example, in State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319 , 984 P.2d 78 (1999), the supreme court exercised appellate jurisdiction and reviewed an order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications to a defendant found incompetent to proceed to trial. In State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269 , 933 P.2d 606 (1997), the supreme court reviewed an order denying the motion of a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense for conditional release or discharge from custody, and in State v. Burgo, 71 Haw. 198 , 787 P.2d 221 (1990), the supreme court reviewed an order revoking the conditional discharge of a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense.
"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (citation, brackets, and ellipses omitted). We view HRS § 707–756 as a whole and construe the statute in accordance with the legislature's overall purpose to give each part a sensible and intelligent effect.
With regard to Lagat's argument that "the Legislature did not intend to use HRS [§] 708-836.5 in the manner in which the state used it," we note that this court has long recognized that, "[w]hen construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself." State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86, reconsideration denied, 91 Haw. 319, 984 P.2d 78 (1999). The construction of a statute is a question of law which the appellate court reviews de novo. . . . Departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified only when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and the literal construction is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute.
The ICA and this court have stated many times that appellate "power to deal with plain error is one to be exercised sparingly." See State v. Mars, 116 Hawai'i 125, 132, 170 P.3d 861, 868 (2007); Fields, 115 Hawai'i at 529, 168 P.3d at 981; State v. Frisbee, 114 Hawai'i 76, 85, 156 P.3d 1182, 1191 (2007) (Nakayama, J., dissenting); State v. Rodrigues, 113 Hawai'i 41, 47, 147 P.3d 825, 831 (2006); Nichols, 111 Hawai'i at 335, 141 P.3d at 982; Honda, 108 Hawai'i at 239, 118 P.3d at 1182 (Levinson, J., dissenting) ("We have noted that `the appellate court's discretion to address plain error is always to be exercised sparingly[.]'" (quoting Okada Trucking Co., 97 Hawai'i at 458, 40 P.3d at 81); State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai'i 17, 22, 25 P.3d 792, 797 (2001); State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 343, 984 P.2d 78, 102 (1999); State v. Lee, 83 Hawai'i 267, 274, 925 P.2d 1091, 1098 (1996); State v. Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i 279, 293, 916 P.2d 689, 703 (1996); State v. Kaiama, 81 Hawai'i 15, 25, 911 P.2d 735, 745 (1996); State v. Baron, 80 Hawai'i 107, 117, 905 P.2d 613, 623 (1995); State v. Puaoi, 78 Hawai'i 185, 191, 891 P.2d 272, 278 (1995); State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 515, 849 P.2d 58, 75 (1993); State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 56, 760 P.2d 670, 676 (1988); State v. Kiaaina, No. 29034, 119 Hawai'i 321, 196 P.3d 323, 2008 WL 4900553 (App. Nov. 14, 2008) (SDO); State v. Mitchell, No. 28079, 195 P.3d 711, 2008 WL 4649426 (App. Oct. 17, 2008) (mem.); State v. Kaahui, No. 28487, 118 Hawai'i 418, 191 P.3d 1095, 2008 WL 4057645 (App. Aug. 29, 2008) (mem.
" HRS § 1-16 (1993).State v. Koch, 107 Hawai'i 215, 220-21, 112 P.3d 69, 74-75 (2005) (some internal citations omitted) (some brackets and ellipses added and some in original) (quoting State v. Kaua, 102 Hawai'i 1, 7-8, 72 P.3d 473, 479-480 (2003) (quoting State v. Ranch, 94 Hawai'i 315, 322-23, 13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai'i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai'i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998)))))))). III. DISCUSSION
What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." HRS § 1-16 (1993). Rauch, 94 Hawai'i at 322-23, 13 P.3d at 331-32 (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999)). III. DISCUSSION
"We have defined `substantial evidence' as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999)).In re Wai`ola O Moloka`i, Inc., 103 Hawai`i 401, 421, 83 P.3d 664, 684 (2004) (quoting In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai`i 97, 118-19, 9 P.3d 409, 430-31 (2000) (some brackets added and some in original)).
What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." HRS § 1-16 (1993). Kaua, 102 Hawai'i at 7-8, 72 P.3d at 479-480 (quoting Rauch, 94 Hawai'i at 322-23, 13 P.3d at 331-32 (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai'i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai'i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998))))))). D. Plain Error
What is clear in one statute may be called upon in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." HRS § 1-16 (1993). Kaua, 102 Hawai'i at 7-8, 72 P.3d at 479-480 (quoting Rauch, 94 Hawai'i at 322-23, 13 P.3d at 331-32 (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai'i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai'i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai'i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998))))))). III. DISCUSSION
HRS § 1-16 (1993).Kaua, 102 Hawai`i at 7-8, 72 P.3d at 479-480 (quoting Rauch, 94 Hawai`i at 322-23, 13 P.3d at 331-32(quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai`i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai`i 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai`i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai`i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998))))))). D. Plain Error