RELATING TO BAIL.

HB675

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H.B. NO.

675

THIRTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2025

STATE OF HAWAII

A BILL FOR AN ACT

relating
to bail
.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

����
SECTION 1.
�
The
legislature finds that according to ACLU Hawai
ʻ
i,
"research shows that money bail has no correlation with public
safety".
�
When a defendant cannot
afford bail, that defendant is detained pretrial.
�
A few days in jail can lead to a defendant
losing a job or housing, or missing school or important payments.
�
Pretrial detention should therefore be
employed only as necessary to ensure the safety of the public or the
defendant's appearance in court.

����
The legislature also finds that in 2019,
the legislature enacted Act 179, Session Laws of Hawaii 2019 (Act 179), which
aimed to address these concerns by overhauling the bail system.
�
Among other things, Act 179 required the
release of a defendant under the least restrictive conditions necessary to
ensure the defendant's appearance and the protection of the public and required
monetary bail to be set in reasonable amounts based on all available
information, including the defendant's ability to pay.
�
These reforms sought to produce a fairer
criminal justice system and to relieve overcrowding in the State's prisons.

����
The legislature further finds that over
five years since the enactment of Act 179, these reforms do not appear to have
had their intended effect.
�
According to Jongwook
"Wookie" Kim and Samantha McNichols,
Criminal justice deep
dive:
�
a closer look at Hawai
ʻ
i
bail statutes and practices
, 28 Hawaii Bar Journal (2024), there has been
"no significant reduction" in the number of people detained pretrial
since 2019.
�
While the number of pretrial
detainees has remained static, the share of pretrial detainees among the
State's incarcerated population has risen by over eight per cent.
�
As of July 2024, "61.7 [per cent] of the
population detained at the Oahu Community Correctional Center were pretrial
detainees".

����
The legislature further finds that these
outcomes have largely remained unchanged because judicial procedures regarding
bail have remained the same since 2019, despite Act 179's efforts to change
them.
�
In testimony on the bill that
became Act 179, the judiciary reported that "little, if any, inquiry is
made concerning the defendant's financial circumstances" during bail
hearings.
�
As of 2024, according to Kim
and McNichols, it was still the case that "[a] person's ability to pay was
not assessed on the record".
�
This
failure to make findings on the record is already causing downstream problems
for the courts.
�
In
State v. Carter
,
546 P.3d 1210 (2024), the intermediate court of appeals recently reversed the
first circuit court for making "no findings" assessing a defendant's
ability to pay bail, or explaining why a bail amount was reasonable based on
all available evidence of the defendant's financial circumstances.

����
The legislature further finds that stronger
provisions are necessary to ensure that Act 179 lives up to its full potential.
A handful of other jurisdictions � including Michigan; Massachusetts; Cook
County, Illinois; and Harris County, Texas �
�

have rules or judicial decisions which require judges to make findings
on the record regarding a defendant's ability to pay.

����
Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to
require judges to make findings regarding a defendant's ability to afford bail,
thereby creating a fairer pretrial system and ensuring that a sufficient record
is developed to enable meaningful appellate review of bail decisions.

����
SECTION
2
.
�
Section 804-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:

����
"
�804-9
�
Amount.
�
(a)
�

The amount of bail rests in the discretion of the [
justice or judge
or the officers named in section 804-5
]
bail judge
and shall be set
in a reasonable amount based upon all available information, including the
offense alleged, the possible punishment upon conviction, and the defendant's
financial ability to afford bail.
�
The
bail amount should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy to escape by
the payment of a pecuniary penalty, nor to render the privilege useless to the
poor.

����
(b)
�

When the bail judge imposes monetary bail as a condition of release, the
judge shall make findings on the record that:

����
(1)
�
The
judge has considered the defendant's financial ability to afford bail and
determined that the defendant is able to pay the amount of monetary bail
required;

����
(2)
�
The
judge adopts or rejects the findings of the intake service center made pursuant
to section 353-10(b)(8) regarding the defendant's financial ability to afford
bail; provided that if the judge rejects the findings, the judge shall state on
the record the specific evidence the judge is relying upon to reject the
findings;

����
(3)
�
Explain
how the bail amount was calculated; and

����
(4)
�
Explain
why no alternative, less restrictive financial or non-financial restrictions
will suffice to ensure the defendant's presence in court and the protection of
the public.

����
(c)
�

If the bail judge sets the bail amount at an amount that exceeds the
defendant's ability to pay, the judge shall explain on the record why the bond
amount is the lowest amount necessary to reasonably ensure the safety of the
public and the defendant's appearance in court.

����
(d)
�

For the purposes of this section, "bail judge" means the
justice, judge, or officers named in section 804-5.
"

����
SECTION 3.
�

Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken.
�
New statutory material is underscored.

����
SECTION 4.
�

This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

INTRODUCED BY:

_____________________________

Report Title:

Judges; Bail;
Findings

Description:

Requires judges to make certain findings regarding a
defendant's ability to afford bail.

The summary description
of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is
not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.