2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes › Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code › 706. Disposition of Convicted Defendants › 706-666 Definition of proof of conviction.

§706-666 Definition of proof of conviction.
(1) An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction for purposes of sections 706-606.5, 706-662, and 706-665, although sentence or the execution thereof was suspended, provided that the defendant was not pardoned on the ground of innocence.
(2) Prior conviction may be proved by any evidence, including fingerprint records made in connection with arrest, conviction, or imprisonment, that reasonably satisfies the court that the defendant was convicted. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1982, c 246, §1]
COMMENTARY ON §706-666
Section 706-666 is addressed to the problems of the definition and proof of former convictions. The Code takes the position that, in determining whether the defendant is a persistent offender, conviction per se is sufficient provided the time for appeal has expired and the defendant has not been pardoned on the ground of innocence. The fact that the disposition of the defendant resulted in a suspended sentence or a suspended execution of a sentence should not be held material for purposes of extended terms.
Subsection (2) provides for a non-restrictive approach to admitting evidence on prior convictions. Since (1) the evidence relied upon is largely official records, (2) the issue is tried to the court, and (3) the court is not compelled to find the defendant a persistent offender, or to impose an extended term even if the minimal requirements are established, no sound purpose would be served by adopting a restrictive evidentiary approach.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §706-666
Act 246, Session Laws 1982, clarified the definition of a conviction by providing that an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant committed a crime constitutes a conviction.
Case Notes
In State v. Kamae, 56 H. 32, 526 P.2d 1200 (1974), the court held that an appeal in forma pauperis was not frivolous when it sought to raise the question of whether the trial court's reliance on a pre-sentence diagnosis and report was sufficient under §706-666(2) to establish that the defendant was a multiple offender warranting an extended term under §706-662(4). The court did not reach the ultimate question.
Pre-sentence report held insufficient evidence of prior conviction. 56 H. 628, 548 P.2d 632 (1976).
With regard to mandatory minimum sentencing as a repeat offender under §706 €“606.5, proof of defendant's prior conviction must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not by the court under a "reasonabl[e] satisf[action]" standard. 136 H. 244, 361 P.3d 471 (2015).
Evidence of defendant's prior conviction reasonably satisfied the court. 9 H. App. 583, 854 P.2d 238 (1993).
State presented sufficient evidence to show that defendant was a repeat offender under §291E-61, where the State introduced: (1) a case detail report, certified by a district court clerk, that showed that the district court accepted the no contest plea of defendant to a previous charge under §291E-61, that defendant was sentenced, and that a "judgment and notice" was filed; and (2) a traffic abstract for defendant, certified by a district court clerk, that also showed the same information reflected in the case detail report. 134 H. 280 (App.), 339 P.3d 1081 (2014).
Where State's evidence showed that a person with the same name, residence address, date of birth, and last four digits of the social security number as defendant, with a similar appearing signature as defendant, and whose prior traffic convictions were included in defendant's abstract, was previously convicted under §291E-61, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant was the person previously convicted. 134 H. 280 (App.), 339 P.3d 1081 (2014).
Cited: 133 H. 102, 324 P.3d 912 (2014).