Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-16
The supreme court, or the intermediate appellate court, as the case may be, may affirm, reverse, or modify the order, judgment, or sentence of the trial court in a criminal matter. It may enter such order, judgment, or sentence, or may remand the case to the trial court for the entry of the same or for such other or further proceedings, as in its opinion the facts and law warrant. It may correct any error appearing on the record.
In case of a conviction and sentence in a criminal case, if in its opinion the sentence is illegal or excessive it may correct the sentence to correspond with the verdict or finding or reduce the same, as the case may be. In case of a sentence to imprisonment for life not subject to parole, the court shall review the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, whether the insufficiency of the evidence is alleged as error or not. Any order, judgment, or sentence entered by the court may be enforced by it or remitted for enforcement by the trial court.
No order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or modified unless the court is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. Nor shall there be a reversal in any criminal case for any defect of form merely in any indictment or information or for any matter held for the benefit of the appellant or for any finding depending on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Except as otherwise provided by the rules of court, there shall be no reversal for any alleged error in the admission or rejection of evidence or the giving of or refusing to give an instruction to the jury unless such alleged error was made the subject of an objection noted at the time it was committed or brought to the attention of the court in another appropriate manner.
HRS § 641-16
General Note
In general.
See appended chapter note, pts. I A, I C, I D.
Disposition of cause.
See appended chapter note, pts. I A10, I C, I D10. Correction of sentence, see HRPP rule 35.
Scope of review.
See appended chapter note, pts. I A9, I C, I D9.
Preservation of error as requisite.
Exceptions unnecessary, HRPP rule 51.
Questions on appeal must have been raised below.43 Haw. 299, 301; 44 H. 370,355 P.2d 25;45 Haw. 83, 88,363 P.2d 964, 967;46 Haw. 475, 485,382 P.2d 920, 934;49 H. 1, 406 P.2d 887;49 Haw. 42, 45,410 P.2d 976; 50 H. 253, 438 P.2d 401. But see as to fundamental error. 49 H. 504, 421 P.2d 305; 49 Haw. 522, 528, 423 P.2d 438;50 Haw. 287,439 P.2d 666. For earlier cases see notes to RLH 1955, §§ 208-3, 210-1, 212-1, 212-4, 212-8, 212-14. Though generally judgment will be reversed only on theory presented to trial court, there may be deviations when justice requires. 53 H. 45, 487 P.2d 1070. Court has power to notice plain errors not raised at trial if they affect substantial rights. Specific grounds for objection are required.56 Haw. 343,537 P.2d 724. Objection to admission of evidence is necessary; objection on specific ground is a waiver of all other objections. 57 H. 96, 550 P.2d 900.
Prejudicial error as requisite.
See HRPP rule 52. Harmless error in indictment, see HRPP rule 7(d). No reversal unless error prejudicial,43 Haw. 119;44 Haw. 10,352 P.2d 320; 45 H. 295, 316 P.2d 499;45 Haw. 457,370 P.2d 468;46 H. 127, 376 P.2d 125; 47 H. 185, 199, 389 P.2d 146;49 Haw. 77, 102,412 P.2d 669;49 Haw. 116,412 P.2d 662. Erroneous instruction presumptively harmful. 49 H. 327, 330, 417 P.2d 638. Error that is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt does not mandate reversal of conviction.57 Haw. 26,548 P.2d 1402.
For earlier cases see notes to RLH 1955, §§ 210-1, 212-14.
Scope of review of factual issues.
See notes to § 635-56. Cited: 47 H. 472, 478, 391 P.2d 403, note 1.
Test on criminal appeals is whether verdict is supported by substantial evidence.55 H. 1, 514 P.2d 373.
Record, correction of.
See appended chapter note, pt. I A7e, I D7.
Rules of Court
Correction of sentence, see HRPP rule 35.
Where defendant in a pretrial suppression hearing noted the defendant's objection to introduction of the defendant's inculpatory statement, the defendant's failure to object at trial to reception of the statement did not constitute waiver of the issue on appeal. 61 H. 499, 605 P.2d 935. Circuit court's unlawful use of "struck jury" method to select jury was not plain error. 9 H. App. 578,855 P.2d 34. Because trial court did not apply appropriate sentencing standards to extended term motion and remand would allow circuit court to reconsider other sentencing alternatives in fashioning an appropriate sentence, modification of sentence was not warranted on appeal. 77 H. 340 (App.),884 P.2d 403. Modification of sentence on appeal warranted where district court, on resentencing, failed to take into account time defendant already served in prison, amount of fines paid, and community service completed. 82 H. 83 (App.), 919 P.2d 995.