RELATING TO REDRESS FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.
HB151 proposes several changes to Hawaii’s existing wrongful conviction compensation law, chapter 661B, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill would require the State to give written notice of the right to file a claim to certain people whose convictions were reversed or vacated with findings supporting innocence, or who received pardons containing information supporting innocence. It also adds a rule that chapter 661B must be liberally construed so that wrongfully convicted and imprisoned people receive compensation.
The bill further creates an advance compensation process for eligible petitioners who were convicted in Hawaii, imprisoned at least one year, and file a petition supporting the conclusion that they did not commit the crime, so long as no new charges have been filed based on the same acts. Under that process, the State would pay $5,000 within seven days of service and continue monthly $5,000 payments until the amount equals one year of compensation, with those payments credited against any final award. The bill also requires the attorney general to report to the Legislature on all chapter 661B petitions in 2026, 2027, and 2028.
In practical terms, the measure would amend chapter 661B by adding new notice and liberal-construction provisions, revising the claim process, and imposing a new interim payment obligation on the State. It would affect the Attorney General’s office, county prosecutors in some cases, and people seeking compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. The bill does not change the underlying compensation rate of $50,000 per year of confinement, but it would make access to the remedy more explicit and provide earlier financial relief in qualifying cases.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of expanding and improving redress for wrongful convictions. The findings emphasize that the existing system has been in place for years, that petitioners have faced lengthy trials in practice, and that the Legislature wants to ensure compensation is actually available to those who were wrongfully imprisoned. The reference to the Hawaii Supreme Court’s Jardine decision suggests the bill is also intended to clarify how innocence-related findings should be treated under the statute.
The main points of contention appear to be procedural and fiscal rather than philosophical. The bill would require the State to begin paying compensation before final resolution of a claim, which could raise concerns about public cost and the risk of paying petitioners before entitlement is fully determined. The bill also limits intervention by third parties and directs liberal construction, which may be viewed as favoring claimants. The committee status indicates the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee recommended deferral, suggesting the measure did not move forward at that stage.
HB151 would amend chapter 661B, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding new statutory duties for the State to notify certain exonerated or pardoned individuals of their right to seek compensation, by requiring liberal construction of the wrongful conviction compensation law, and by creating an advance-payment mechanism for qualifying petitioners. It would also require the Department of the Attorney General to submit periodic reports to the Legislature on all petitions filed under the chapter. These changes would affect the administration of wrongful conviction claims, the Attorney General, county prosecutors in some cases, and individuals seeking redress for wrongful imprisonment.
The bill appears generally favorable toward wrongful-conviction claimants and is framed as a corrective to practical barriers in the current compensation process. The Legislature’s findings express concern that the existing law has led to lengthy trials and that the statute should be improved to better ensure compensation for people who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. The available voting and committee information shows no recorded floor vote, and the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee recommended deferral, indicating the measure did not advance at that point.
The most notable areas of potential disagreement are the advance-compensation requirement, the directive for liberal construction, and the restriction on intervention in proceedings. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to make the compensation system more accessible and responsive, while opponents may worry about premature state payments, administrative burden, and reduced procedural safeguards. The reporting requirement and the expanded notice obligations may also raise implementation concerns for the Attorney General’s office and prosecutors.