Source: http://www.baillaws.com/laws/hawaii
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:58:51+00:00

Document:
1. HRS § 804-51 HAWAII REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED DIVISION 5. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 38. PROCEDURAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS CHAPTER 804. Bail; Bond to Keep the Peace PART III. FORFEITURE.
2. HI ST §§ 804- 14, 41.
1. HRS § 804-51 HAWAII REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED DIVISION 5.CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 38. PROCEDURAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS CHAPTER 804. Bail; Bond to Keep the Peace PART III. FORFEITURE § 804-51 Procedure.
Unless before the expiration of thirty days from the date that notice is given to the surety or sureties on the bond of the entry of the judgment in favor of the State, a motion or application of the principal or principals, surety or sureties, or any of them, showing good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment, is filed with the court.
If the motion or application, after a hearing held thereon, is sustained, the court shall vacate the judgment of forfeiture and, if the principal surrenders or is surrendered pursuant to sections 804-14 or 804-41 (*** See “Forfeiture Defenses” below ***), return the bond or recognizance to the principal or surety, whoever shall have given it, less the amount of any cost, as established at the hearing, incurred by the State as a result of the nonappearance of the principal or other event on the basis of which the court forfeited the bond or recognizance.
If the motion or application, after a hearing held thereon, is overruled, execution shall forthwith issue and shall not be stayed unless the order overruling the motion or application is appealed from as in the case of a final judgment.
This section shall be considered to be set forth in full in words and figures in, and to form a part of, and to be included in, each and every bond or recognizance given in a criminal cause, whether actually set forth in the bond or recognizance, or not.
James Lindblad, Inc., 83 Haw. 118, 925 P.2d 288 (1996), reconsideration denied, 83 Haw. 408, 927 P.2d 416 (1996). The Surety’s notice of appeal was timely and the court had appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of “the appealable event”. State v. Ranger Ins. Co. ex rel.
2. HI ST § 804-14–S 804-14 Discharge of sureties.
3. HI ST § 804-41– S 804-41 Discharge of surety.
4. HRS § 657D-3 HAWAII REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED DIVISION 4. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 36. CIVIL REMEDIES AND DEFENSES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS [CHAPTER 657D]. CIVIL RELIEF FOR STATE MILITARY FORCES PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (§ 657D-3) Protection of persons secondarily liable.
Whenever by reason of the military service of a principal, the sureties of a criminal bail bond are prevented from enforcing the attendance of their principal and performing their obligation, the court shall not enforce the provisions of the bond during the military service of that principal. The court, in accordance with principles of equity and justice, may discharge those sureties and exonerate the bail either during or after such service.
State v. Camara, 81 Haw. 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996).
In order for a surety to recover its bond, less costs, either of the following must be met: (1) the principle surrenders, which, includes both voluntary and involuntary surrender by the principal to law enforcement officials; or (2) the principal is surrendered by the surety to the appropriate authority.
“Good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment” encompasses a showing of a satisfactory reason for a defendant’s failure to appear when required.
“Good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment” of forfeiture may be shown by the defendant surrendering or being surrendered prior to expiration of the thirty-day search period.
State v. Taylor, 56 Haw. 203, 532 P.2d 663 (1975). Where defendant made her appearance before the adjournment of the court, an order for bail forfeiture would be set aside.
1. HI ST § 804-14–S 804-14 Discharge of sureties.
2. HI ST § 804-41– S 804-41 Discharge of surety.
Bail surety filed motion to set aside bond forfeiture ordered when bonded defendant fled before trial. The First Circuit Court denied motion, and bail surety appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals, Watanabe, J., held that surety was not entitled to relief from bond forfeiture after surety located defendant, but law enforcement officers in jurisdiction where the defendant was located allegedly refused to arrest defendant and return him because Hawai’i had not entered bench warrant information into Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system.
Surety moved to set aside judgment of forfeiture of appearance bond. The First Circuit Court, City and County of Honolulu, denied motion, and surety appealed. The Supreme Court, Moon, C.J., held that: (1) surety’s notice of appeal was timely, and (2) surety was entitled to return of its bond, less costs.
Bail bondsman appealed from judgment of the District Court, First Circuit, Honolulu Division, Honolulu County, Kenneth W. Harada, J., denying indemnification on ground that the expenses incurred and claimed arose out of the bondsman’s negligence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals, Padgett, J., held that: (1) evidence supported finding that the bondsman had been negligent, and (2) the bondsman was not entitled to be indemnified against results of his own negligence, where the agreement did not contain any language providing for indemnity in such a case.
Hawaii does not have provisions regarding bounty hunters.

References: § 804
 § 804
 § 804
 v. 
 § 804
 § 804
 § 657
 v. 
 v. 
 § 804
 § 804