HRS §626:1-402
When evidence is relevant in court cases
This section explains that evidence is relevant if it makes a fact in a case more or less likely. Courts decide what evidence to allow based on this rule. It also includes examples from past cases showing how courts applied this rule.
courts
The statute, as written — , the family court was required to consider all evidence relevant to the issue of whether modification of the decree would be in the best interests of the child, and pre-decree evidence was clearly re
levant to this determination. 138 H. 468, 382 P.3d 280 (2016). Defendant's failure to proclaim defendant's innocence to cellmate was irrelevant under rule 401 and, thus, not admissible by virtue of this rule. 104 H. 203, 87 P.3d 275 (2004). Proffered evidence properly excluded as irrelevant. 4 H. App. 175, 664 P.2d 262 (1983). Although evidence that defendant had previously been convicted of a felony was relevant for purposes of §134-7, evidence that defendant may have received ineffective assistance of counsel during that prior felony trial would not have any bearing on the validity of that felony conviction; thus, trial court did not err in precluding evidence that defendant may have received ineffective assistance during prior trial. 90 H. 489 (App.), 979 P.2d 85 (1999). Trial court did not err in admitting seatbelt buckle patent into evidence under rules 401 and 403 and this rule for the limited purpose of showing a defect in the seatbelt where the language in the patent that "known mechanisms are complicated, and some do not positively retain the latch plate" may have evinced a defect in the seatbelt that could have resulted in inertial or inadvertent release in the case, as well as defendant's knowledge of such a defect. 121 H. 143 (App.), 214 P.3d 1133 (2009). Mentioned: 129 H. 250 (App.), 297 P.3d 1106 (2013).
LawTrove is not legal advice. The summary above is a computer-generated restatement — the authoritative text is the official version linked above.