Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Hawaii · Chapter 701

§701-116 Proving applicability of the Code.

244 words·~1 min read·/hi/chapter-701/701-116

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

§701-116 Proving applicability of the Code. When the application of the Code depends on the finding of a fact which is not required to be found beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1)The burden of proving the fact is on the prosecution or defendant, depending on whose interest or contention will be furthered if the finding should be made; and
(2)The fact must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §701-116
The draft follows the Model Penal Code in defining a standard of proof of facts called for in application of the Code. It would cover, for example, a finding that the defendant lacks mental capacity to proceed.[1] It logically places the burden of proof on the side whose interest or contention would be furthered if the finding is made. Proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus when facts making the defendant subject to increased penalties must be proved,[2] the prosecution need not prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by preponderant evidence. The Model Penal Code draftsmen explain:
... proof that satisfies the court is not likely to leave room for a substantial doubt; and this, in our view, affords an adequate protection in an area where we deliberately have sought to broaden the discretion of the court.[3]
__________
§701-116 Commentary:
1. Cf. §§704-403 to 406.
2. Cf. §706-662.
3. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 4, comments at 114 (1955).
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.