§804-9 Amount.

406 words·~2 min read·/hi/chapter-804/804-9

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

§804-9 Amount. The amount of bail rests in the discretion of the justice or judge or the officers named in section 804-5 and shall be set in a reasonable amount based upon all available information, including the offense alleged, the possible punishment upon conviction, and the defendant's financial ability to afford bail. The bail amount should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy to escape by the payment of a pecuniary penalty, nor to render the privilege useless to the poor. [PC 1869, c 50, §6; RL 1925, §3984; am imp L 1933, c 30, §1; RL 1935, §5438; RL 1945, §10739; RL 1955, §256-9; HRS §709-9; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2019, c 179, §20]

Cross References

See Const. art. I, §12.

Case Notes

Section means no more than that bail shall be in a reasonable amount, considering the financial status of defendant and the possible punishment. 56 H. 447, 539 P.2d 1197 (1975).

No abuse of discretion in setting bail at $75 for person arrested for simple trespass. 64 H. 130, 637 P.2d 1105 (1981).

Since §804-5 provides chief of police or designee with independent authority and discretion to admit persons charged with misdemeanor offenses to bail in accordance with this section, senior judge of family court lacked authority to issue a bail schedule divesting police of that authority and discretion. 75 H. 357, 861 P.2d 1205 (1993).

Trial court abused its discretion by not tailoring bail to defendant's individual circumstances, pending appeal of defendant's conviction, where:

(1)bail was initially set at $200 when defendant was facing the possibility of one year in jail, but trial court increased bail amount to $2,000 cash only after ultimately sentencing defendant to thirty days' imprisonment;

(2)defendant was nineteen years of age and determined by trial court to be indigent;

(3)trial court raised defendant's bail simply because defendant was a recent arrival to Hawaii;

(4)the increase in bail was directly contradicted by trial court's comments that treatment for anger management, substance abuse, or mental health was not appropriate for defendant;

(5)trial court apparently increased bail amount based on defendant's father's ability to pay; and

(6)there was evidence on the record that trial court improperly used the maximum amount of the fine applicable to defendant to determine the amount of bail. 136 H. 471, 363 P.3d 319 (2015).

Cited: 76 H. 219, 873 P.2d 98 (1994).