"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.
HRS § 1-16 (1993).State v. Rauch, 94 Haw. 315, 322-23, 13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quotingState v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90 Haw. 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Haw. 85, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999) (quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Haw. 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793, 798-99 (1998) (quotingKorean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 87 Haw. 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28 (1998)))))). III. DISCUSSION
Insofar, then, as HRS § 803-6(b) may conflict with § 291C-165, the latter, relating as it does to traffic infractions, would control in a jaywalking case, it being the more specific statute of the two with respect to the violation involved here. See State v. Kotis, 91 Hawaii 319, 330, 984 P.2d 78, 89,reconsideration denied, 1999 Haw. LEXIS 306 (1999); Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawaii 46, 53, 961 P.2d 611, 618 (1998); State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawaii 295, 303, 933 P.2d 632, 640, reconsideration denied, 84 Hawaii 496, 936 P.2d 191 (1997); Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawaii 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawaii 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994), judgment aff'd, 124 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[W]here there is a 'plainly irreconcilable' conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject matter, the specific will be favored.").