§806-27 Indictment; defects and omissions. No indictment shall be held invalid or insufficient for want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved; for any defect or omission of any matter of form only; for any miswriting, misspelling, or improper English, or the use of abbreviations, signs, symbols, or foreign words locally in common use and commonly understood; for the omission of the words "as appears upon the record", or "as appears by the record" or of the words "against the peace" or of the words "against the form of the statute" or of the words "against the form of the statutes"; or, provided jurisdiction of the court is shown with certainty sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary intelligence, for stating time or place imperfectly or incorrectly.

No indictment shall be held invalid or insufficient for want of an averment that the grand jurors were impaneled, sworn, or charged; for want of a proper or formal conclusion; for want of or imperfection in the addition of any defendant; or because any person mentioned in the indictment is designated by a name of office or other descriptive appellation instead of the person's proper name; or because the initial of any person's given name is stated instead of the person's given name; or for want of a statement of value or price or the amount of damage or injury in any case where the value or price or the amount of damage or injury is not of the essence of the offense.

No indictment shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter or form, which shall not prejudice or tend to prejudice the defendant. [L 1876, c 40, §15; am L 1903, c 39, §7; am L 1915, c 215, §1; RL 1925, §4039; add L 1927, c 262, §1; RL 1935, §5498; RL 1945, §10800; RL 1955, §258-10; HRS §711-27; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]

Rules of Court

Nature and contents of indictment, see HRPP rule 7(d).

Case Notes

Variance. See 34 F.2d 86 (1929).

Indictment held demurrable for lack of particularity. 10 H. 114 (1895).

Exact date of embezzlement need not be stated in indictment. 11 H. 213 (1897).

Indictment for murder in first degree, describing the offense, is not fatally defective because in its conclusion it does not name deceased. 11 H. 293 (1898).

Ordinarily, unless excused by statute time of commission of offense must be specifically alleged. 18 H. 246 (1907).

Time need not be proved as laid where it is not of the essence of crime charged. 21 H. 214 (1912); 34 H. 209 (1937); 35 H. 571 (1940).

Sufficiency. 33 H. 180 (1934); 35 H. 324 (1940); 33 H. 560 (1935), questioned and criticized on other grounds. 36 H. 355, 361 (1943).

Indictment for burglary which stated ownership was in A instead of A and partner held not invalid. 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365 (1962).

Cited: 19 H. 88 (1908); 22 H. 773, 777 (1915); 37 H. 552, 553 (1947).