Rule 140.Order of Proceedings.
Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified September 11, 2026
Full Text of Rule 140
Amendment History
The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s compiled text of this rule carries no amendment order for this rule. For the adopting orders and any later amendments, see the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s rules page.
Plain-English Summary
Before taking testimony, the court shall explain to the child and the child parents their rights as set out in Rules 154 and 155, the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. That comes first, before anything is said on the record.
The court may then ask whether the child admits or denies all or some of the allegations. The next sentence does important work: failure or refusal of the child to admit the allegations shall be deemed a denial. Silence is not an admission, and a child who says nothing is treated as contesting everything.
Where admitted allegations are enough to give the court jurisdiction, the court may still take testimony to corroborate the admission or otherwise establish the petition. Where any allegation needed for jurisdiction is denied, the court proceeds as the rule provides. Rule 143 then sets the standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt in law violation cases, a preponderance otherwise.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens at the start of a Hawaii adjudication hearing?
Before taking testimony the court explains to the child and the parents their rights under Rules 154 and 155.
What if the child says nothing?
Failure or refusal of the child to admit the allegations is deemed a denial of them.
Does an admission end the hearing?
Not necessarily. Where admitted allegations suffice for jurisdiction, the court may still take testimony to corroborate the admission or otherwise establish the petition.
Can a child admit only part of the petition?
Yes. The court may inquire whether the child admits or denies all or some of the allegations.
What is the standard of proof?
Rule 143 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all material facts in law violation cases, and a preponderance of the evidence otherwise.