Opinion ID: 1163153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: On appeal, the issue whether a defendant's constitutional right against double jeopardy will not be violated if the defendant is criminally prosecuted following a civil forfeiture is a question of law and thus reviewable under the de novo or right/wrong standard. State v. Baranco, 77 Hawai`i 351, 351, 884 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (citing United States v. Bernhardt, 831 F.2d 181, 182 (9th Cir. 1987)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 15, 904 P.2d 893, 900 (1995). Under the right/wrong standard, we examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it. State v. Miller, 4 Haw.App. 603, 606, 671 P.2d 1037, 1040 (1983). See also Amfac, Inc. v. Waik&imacr;k&imacr; Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 119, 839 P.2d 10, 28, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992). Thus, [a] [conclusion of law] is not binding upon the appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness. State v. Bowe, 77 Hawai`i 51, 53, 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citation omitted). We review the trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Dan v. State, 76 Hawai`i 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994). Under this standard, [a] finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. Id.