Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

Hawaii House Bill HB1325 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.B. NO. 1325 THIRTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, 2023 STATE OF HAWAII A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
2	2
3	3	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.B. NO. 1325
4	4	THIRTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, 2023
5	5	STATE OF HAWAII
6	6
7	7	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
8	8
9	9	H.B. NO.
10	10
11	11	1325
12	12
13	13	THIRTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, 2023
14	14
15	15
16	16
17	17	STATE OF HAWAII
18	18
19	19
20	20
21	21
22	22
23	23
24	24
25	25
26	26
27	27
28	28
29	29
30	30
31	31	A BILL FOR AN ACT
32	32
33	33
34	34
35	35
36	36
37	37	RELATING TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS.
38	38
39	39
40	40
41	41
42	42
43	43	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
44	44
45	45
46	46
47	47	SECTION 1. Chapter 641, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "Part . POST-CONVICTION REVIEW §641- Habeas corpus for post-conviction review. (a) Any person imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, under any pretense, may petition for a writ of habeas corpus for post‑conviction review to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint. (b) A person may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of habeas corpus for post-conviction review by asserting the following: (1) False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against the person at a hearing or trial relating to the person's incarceration; (2) An opinion of an expert that has either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that has been undermined by further scientific knowledge or later scientific research or technological advances was a material factor directly related to a plea of guilty by the person or a conviction of the person; (3) New evidence has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching, and is likely to have changed the outcome of the trial; or (4) A significant dispute has emerged or further developed in the person's favor regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that was introduced at trial and contributed to the conviction, is likely to have changed the outcome at trial, including: (A) Any conclusion or the scientific, forensic, or medical facts upon which the conclusion is based; (B) The reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific or forensic expert based their testimony; and (C) Information from credible expert testimony or declaration, or by peer-reviewed literature showing that experts in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community, substantial in number or expertise, have concluded that developments have occurred that undermine the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, method, theory, research, or study upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony. (c) In assessing whether a dispute is significant, the court shall give great weight to evidence that a consensus has developed in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community undermining the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony or that there is a lack of consensus as to the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony. (d) The supreme court shall establish rules regarding the form and content of the petition, the respondent to the petition, a hearing on the petition, disposition and review of the petition, and referral to the public defender if the person is indigent. (e) This section does not: (1) Change the existing procedures for habeas relief; or (2) Limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies. (f) This section shall not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert's relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion." SECTION 2. Chapter 641, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending the title to read as follows: "CHAPTER 641 APPEALS AND POST-CONVICTION REVIEW" SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored. SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: _____________________________
48	48
49	49	SECTION 1. Chapter 641, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
50	50
51	51	"Part . POST-CONVICTION REVIEW
52	52
53	53	§641- Habeas corpus for post-conviction review. (a) Any person imprisoned or restrained of their liberty, under any pretense, may petition for a writ of habeas corpus for post‑conviction review to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint.
54	54
55	55	(b) A person may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of habeas corpus for post-conviction review by asserting the following:
56	56
57	57	(1) False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against the person at a hearing or trial relating to the person's incarceration;
58	58
59	59	(2) An opinion of an expert that has either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that has been undermined by further scientific knowledge or later scientific research or technological advances was a material factor directly related to a plea of guilty by the person or a conviction of the person;
60	60
61	61	(3) New evidence has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching, and is likely to have changed the outcome of the trial; or
62	62
63	63	(4) A significant dispute has emerged or further developed in the person's favor regarding expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that was introduced at trial and contributed to the conviction, is likely to have changed the outcome at trial, including:
64	64
65	65	(A) Any conclusion or the scientific, forensic, or medical facts upon which the conclusion is based;
66	66
67	67	(B) The reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific or forensic expert based their testimony; and
68	68
69	69	(C) Information from credible expert testimony or declaration, or by peer-reviewed literature showing that experts in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community, substantial in number or expertise, have concluded that developments have occurred that undermine the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, method, theory, research, or study upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony.
70	70
71	71	(c) In assessing whether a dispute is significant, the court shall give great weight to evidence that a consensus has developed in the relevant medical, scientific, or forensic community undermining the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony or that there is a lack of consensus as to the reliability or validity of the diagnosis, technique, methods, theories, research, or studies upon which a medical, scientific, or forensic expert based their testimony.
72	72
73	73	(d) The supreme court shall establish rules regarding the form and content of the petition, the respondent to the petition, a hearing on the petition, disposition and review of the petition, and referral to the public defender if the person is indigent.
74	74
75	75	(e) This section does not:
76	76
77	77	(1) Change the existing procedures for habeas relief; or
78	78
79	79	(2) Limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies.
80	80
81	81	(f) This section shall not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates the original opinion provided at a hearing or trial or whose opinion has been undermined by scientific research, technological advancements, or because of a reasonable dispute within the expert's relevant scientific community as to the validity of the methods, theories, research, or studies upon which the expert based their opinion."
82	82
83	83	SECTION 2. Chapter 641, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending the title to read as follows:
84	84
85	85	"CHAPTER 641
86	86
87	87	APPEALS AND POST-CONVICTION REVIEW"
88	88
89	89	SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.
90	90
91	91	SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
92	92
93	93
94	94
95	95	INTRODUCED BY: _____________________________
96	96
97	97	INTRODUCED BY:
98	98
99	99	_____________________________
100	100
101	101
102	102
103	103
104	104
105	105	Report Title: Post-Conviction Review; Habeas Corpus; Criminal Conviction Description: Sets forth requirements under which a convicted person may seek review for a criminal conviction. The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.
106	106
107	107
108	108
109	109
110	110
111	111	Report Title:
112	112
113	113	Post-Conviction Review; Habeas Corpus; Criminal Conviction
114	114
115	115
116	116
117	117	Description:
118	118
119	119	Sets forth requirements under which a convicted person may seek review for a criminal conviction.
120	120
121	121
122	122
123	123
124	124
125	125
126	126
127	127	The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.