Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-7
(a) The district courts may:
(6) In a criminal case, alter, set aside, or suspend a sentence by way of mitigation or otherwise upon motion or plea of a defendant made within thirty days after imposition of the sentence.
Every witness duly subpoenaed as provided in this section shall be allowed the same attendance and mileage fees allowed witnesses subpoenaed before the circuit courts.
[L 1892, c 57, §12; RL 1925, §2275; am L 1925, c 145, §1; RL 1935, §3764; am L 1935, cc 23, 110, §1; am L 1937, c 19, §1; RL 1945, §9675; am L 1945, c 80, §2; am L 1951, c 278, §1; am L 1955, cc 40, 197, §1; RL 1955, §216-6; am L 1957, c 152, §1 and c 246, §1; am L 1963, c 108, §1; HRS §604-7; am L 1970, c 188, §15; am L 1971, c 144, §3; am L 1975, c 122, §1; am L 1983, c 249, §2; am L 2002, c 8, §1; am L 2011, c 171, §1]
Witness fees, see §§607-12 and 621-7.
Altering or setting aside of judgment, see DCRCP rules 59, 60.
Service, see DCRCP rule 4.
Subpoenas, see DCRCP rule 45.
Venue, see DCRCP rules 3, 82.
Civil Practice in the Honolulu District Courts—An Outline for the Young Attorney. 1 HBJ, no. 8, at 14 (1963).
Contemporary Contempt: The State of the Law in Hawaii. I HBJ, no. 13, at 59 (1997).
Formerly police courts had no jurisdiction to issue civil process to be issued outside of its district. 8 H. 416 (1892).
Continuance on return day, presumed made after service. 15 H. 486 (1904).
Power to alter final judgment; may correct record to conform to truth. 24 H. 600 (1919).
Power to vacate void judgment. 40 H. 302 (1953).
Motion for reduction of sentence made two years after imposition of sentence is not timely made. 50 H. 624, 446 P.2d 559 (1968).
Where the State orally moved the district court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the charges against defendant on the same day that the court dismissed the charges, and the protection against double jeopardy did not apply because the district court’s dismissal of the charges did not constitute an acquittal, based on the plain language of subsection (a)(3), the district court had the power to grant the State’s oral motion to reconsider the court’s dismissal of the charges with prejudice. 128 H. 449 (App.), 290 P.3d 519 (2012).