CourtListener 10780891

Testo completo

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-JAN-2026
08:10 AM
Dkt. 71 OP

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

---o0o---

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BRANDY BLAS and THOMAS BLAS, SR., Defendants-Appellees,
and DEBRA GERON, Defendant-Appellant.

AND

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BRANDY BLAS, Defendant-Appellant, and
THOMAS BLAS, SR. and DEBRA GERON, Defendants-Appellees.

AND

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BRANDY BLAS and THOMAS BLAS, SR., Defendants-Appellees,
and DEBRA GERON, Defendant-Appellant
and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
Interested Party-Appellee.
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

AND

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BRANDY BLAS, Defendant-Appellant,
and THOMAS BLAS, SR. and DEBRA GERON, Defendants-Appellees.
and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
Interested Party-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

JANUARY 28, 2026

NAKASONE, CHIEF JUDGE, HIRAOKA AND WADSWORTH, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKASONE, CHIEF JUDGE

This consolidated appeal1 involves challenges regarding
bail and pretrial bail reports by detainees who are held without
bail (no-bail detainees). Appellants appeal from the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit's (Circuit Court)2 orders denying bail
and its subsequent order denying their motions for Oahu Intake
Service Center (OISC) to prepare pretrial bail reports.

1 We consolidated these four bail-related appeals, CAAP-24-458,
24-667, 24-729, and 24-765, which all arise out of the same underlying
criminal case. In that case, Debra Geron (Geron) and Brandy Blas (Blas)
(collectively, Appellants) are co-defendants currently pending trial for the
alleged abuse and subsequent 2024 death of G.B., a ten-year-old foster child
in the custody of Blas and her husband, co-defendant Thomas Blas, Sr. Geron
is Blas's mother who lived in the same household. Some of the charges
involve another foster child, five-year-old A.B., who was also in Blas's
custody during the relevant time period.
2 The Honorable Paul B.K. Wong presided.

2
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

While we affirm the Circuit Court's orders in this
case, we clarify pursuant to State v. Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi 96, 546
P.3d 1210 (App. 2024), cert. denied, SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL
2786454 (Haw. May 30, 2024), that trial courts may not set bail
for a no-bail detainee for the purpose of obtaining a pretrial
bail report, as was suggested by Interested Party-Appellee State
of Hawaiʻi Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Department)3 and the OISC in this case. We hold that the Intake
Service Center (ISC) statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §
353-10(b),4 unambiguously excludes a no-bail detainee from

3 The Department entered an appearance and opposed Appellants'
motions for bail reports below and on appeal.
4 HRS § 353-10, entitled "Intake service centers," sets forth the
duties of ISCs, which are established under the Department "in each of the
counties to screen, evaluate, and classify the admission of persons to
community correctional centers." HRS § 353-10(a) (2015 & 2024 Supp.). HRS §
353-10(b)(3) and (b)(9) require ISCs to conduct pretrial risk assessments and
provide pretrial bail reports for "adult offenders," as follows:

(b) The [ISCs] shall:

(1) Provide orientation, guidance, and technical
services;

(2) Provide social-medical-psychiatric-psychological
diagnostic evaluation;

(3) Conduct internal pretrial risk assessments on
adult offenders within three working days of
admission to a community correctional center;
provided that this paragraph shall not apply to
persons subject to county or state detainers or
holds, persons detained without bail, persons
detained for probation violation, persons facing
revocation of bail or supervised release, and
persons who have had a pretrial risk assessment
completed prior to admission to a community
correctional center. For purposes of this
paragraph, "pretrial risk assessment" means an
objective, research-based, validated assessment
tool that measures an offender's risk of flight,
risk of criminal conduct, and risk of violence or
harm to any person or the general public while on
pretrial release pending adjudication. The
pretrial risk assessment tool and procedures
associated with its administration shall be

3
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

periodically reviewed and subject to further
validation at least every five years to evaluate
the effectiveness of the tool and the procedures
associated with its administration. The findings
of periodic reviews shall be publicly reported;

(4) Provide correctional prescription program planning
and security classification;

(5) Provide other personal and correctional services
as needed for both detained and committed persons;

(6) Monitor and record the progress of persons
assigned to correctional facilities who undergo
further treatment or who participate in prescribed
correctional programs;

(7) Provide continuing supervision and control of
persons ordered to be placed on pretrial
supervision by the court and persons ordered by
the director;

(8) Make inquiry with the offender concerning the
offender's financial circumstances and include
this information in the bail report; provided that
the department of corrections and rehabilitation's
pretrial services officers shall be provided
limited access for the purpose of viewing other
state agencies' relevant data related to an
offender's employment wages and taxes;

(9) Provide pretrial bail reports to the courts on
adult offenders, within three working days of
admission of the offender to a community
correctional center, that are ordered by the court
or consented to by the offender. A complete copy
of the executed pretrial risk assessment
delineating the scored items, the total score, any
administrative scoring overrides applied, and
written explanations for administrative scoring
overrides, shall be included in the pretrial bail
report. The pretrial bail reports shall be
confidential and shall not be deemed to be public
records. . . .

(Emphases added.) This opinion addresses only the underscored language at
issue here in subsection (b)(3), pertaining to "persons detained without
bail," whom we refer to as no-bail detainees. We express no opinion as to
the other categories of persons excluded in HRS § 353-10(b)(3). Because
pretrial detainees include persons who have not yet been convicted of an
offense, in this opinion we use the term "detainee" instead of the term
"offender," as used in the statute.

4
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

eligibility for a pretrial risk assessment and bail report
completed on an expedited basis "within three working days" of
the detainee's admission to a community correctional center.
HRS § 353-10(b) is silent regarding non-expedited pretrial risk
assessments and bail reports that are requested for any detainee
after the three-day expedited period has passed. We conclude
that the provision of a non-expedited pretrial bail report, even
for a no-bail detainee, is consistent with the legislative
intent of HRS § 353-10(b) to increase opportunities for bail
review and for ISCs to fulfill their core responsibility to
provide pretrial bail reports to the courts. Because HRS § 353-
10(b) does not prohibit ISCs from providing a non-expedited
pretrial bail report upon court request for any detainee, a
trial court may thus request such a report for any detainee,
even one held without bail.
I. INTRODUCTION
In CAAP-24-667, Blas appeals from the Circuit Court's
October 7, 2024 "Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Supervised
Release to [OISC] and/or Set Bail" (Order Denying Blas Bail).
In CAAP-24-458, Geron appeals from the Circuit Court's
June 7, 2024 oral ruling regarding bail, and its December 4,
2024 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying
Defendant Geron's Motion for Supervised Release or Bail
Reduction with Conditions of Supervised Release" (Order Denying
Geron Bail).5
In CAAP-24-765 (for Blas) and CAAP-24-729 (for Geron),
Appellants appeal from the Circuit Court's October 12, 2024
"Order Denying Brandy Blas and Debra Geron's Motions for an

5 We construe Geron's timely filed Notice of Appeal from the June
7, 2024 oral ruling to include the December 4, 2024 Order Denying Geron Bail.
Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(b)(4).

5
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Order Instructing the [OISC] to Prepare and File a Pretrial Bail
Report" (Joint Order Denying Pretrial Bail Reports).
Appellants raise the following points of error on
appeal: (1) in the Order Denying Blas Bail, Blas challenges the
Circuit Court's determinations regarding the flight risk
presumption, serious risk of obstruction of justice, and serious
risk of illegal activity under HRS § 804-3(b) and (c);6 (2) in
the Order Denying Geron Bail, Geron challenges the Circuit
Court's determinations that Geron "did not rebut the presumption
that she present[ed] a serious risk" of "illegal activity" and
that Geron posed a serious risk of obstruction of justice based
on a first-degree hindering prosecution charge; and (3) in the
Joint Order Denying Pretrial Bail Reports, Appellants challenge
the Circuit Court's conclusion "as a matter of law" that OISC

6 HRS § 804-3 (2014 & 2023 Supp.), entitled "Bailable offenses,"
provides for the denial of bail for "serious crime[s]" where any of the
"serious risk[s]" set forth in subsections (b)(1) to (b)(4) are present, and
as relevant here, establishes a "rebuttable presumption" of a serious flight
risk in subsection (c), as follows:

(b) Any person charged with a criminal offense shall be bailable
by sufficient sureties; provided that bail may be denied
where the charge is for a serious crime, and:

(1) There is a serious risk that the person will flee;

(2) There is a serious risk that the person will obstruct
or attempt to obstruct justice, or therefore, injure,
or intimidate, or attempt to thereafter, injure, or
intimidate, a prospective witness or juror;

(3) There is a serious risk that the person poses a danger
to any person or the community; or

(4) There is a serious risk that the person will engage in
illegal activity.

(c) Under subsection (b)(1) a rebuttable presumption arises that
there is a serious risk that the person will flee or will not
appear as directed by the court where the person is charged
with a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for life
without possibility of parole. . . .

6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"was not required to prepare a pretrial bail report under [HRS]
§ 353-10[,]" and the denial of their motions requesting the
reports.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi's (State) February
14, 2024 19-count grand jury Indictment charged Blas, Geron, and
Blas's spouse with various felony and misdemeanor offenses,
including second-degree murder against Blas and Geron, and
sought enhanced sentencing, based on Appellants' "multiple
offender" status if convicted, and due to the "especially
heinous, atrocious, or cruel" nature of the alleged murder.
Along with the Indictment, no-bail bench warrants were issued
against Blas and Geron.
The Indictment charged Blas with ten counts, including
second-degree murder in Count 1; kidnapping in Count 3;
conspiracy to commit kidnapping in Count 5; first-degree
unlawful imprisonment in Count 8; conspiracy to commit first-
degree unlawful imprisonment in Count 10; first-degree
endangering the welfare of a minor in Count 13; first-degree
hindering prosecution in Count 15; second-degree endangering the
welfare of a minor in Count 17; persistent nonsupport in Counts
18 and 19.
The Indictment charged Geron with six counts,
including second-degree murder in Count 2; kidnapping in Count
4; conspiracy to commit kidnapping in Count 7; first-degree
unlawful imprisonment in Counts 9 and 12; and first-degree
hindering prosecution in Count 16.
Blas's Motion to Set Bail
On March 22, 2024, Blas filed a "Motion for Supervised
Release to [OISC] and/or Set Bail" (Blas's Motion to Set Bail).
At the May 1, 2024 hearing on the motion, the parties stipulated

7
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

that Blas did not have a criminal record. Blas testified that
she was born and raised on Oʻahu; was thirty-six years old; most
of her family lived on Oʻahu; aside from a single trip as a
child, she had no personal recollection of leaving Oʻahu; and she
did not have a passport. The Circuit Court denied Blas's Motion
to Set Bail, finding that Blas had been charged with "serious
offenses" that qualified for denial of bail under HRS §
804-3(b), and applied the presumption that Blas posed a serious
flight risk because she faced a penalty of life imprisonment
without parole. The Circuit Court found that Blas's testimony
did not rebut this rebuttable presumption under HRS § 804-3(c).
Citing the grand jury's probable cause finding to charge Blas
with Hindering in the First Degree and two counts of conspiracy,
the Circuit Court also found Blas posed "a serious risk of
obstruction" and "a serious risk" of "illegal activity" under
HRS § 804-3(b). Blas timely appealed the October 7, 2024 Order
Denying Blas Bail.
Geron's Motion to Set Bail
On May 22, 2024, Geron filed a "Motion for Supervised
Release or Bail Reduction with Conditions of Supervised Release"
(Geron's Motion to Set Bail).7 At the June 7, 2024 hearing on
the motion, Geron's husband, William M. Geron, Sr., testified
that he and Geron had been married for forty-seven years; Geron
had "[n]ever been in trouble with the law before"; Geron was
afraid of flying and travelling by boat; and Geron possessed
title to a residence in Oʻahu. Under HRS § 804-3(c), the Circuit
Court found that although Geron had been charged with crimes
serious enough to warrant punishment of life imprisonment

7 Geron's counsel noted that he had incorrectly titled the motion,
which should have read, "motion for supervised release or to set bail."

8
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

without parole, her husband's testimony rebutted the presumption
that she presented a serious flight risk. Despite the rebutted
flight risk, the Circuit Court nevertheless denied bail because
Geron presented "a serious risk of obstructing . . . justice"
under subsection (b)(2), and "a serious risk" of "illegal
activity" under subsection (b)(4), because the grand jury found
probable cause to charge Geron with Hindering in the First
Degree and conspiracy. Geron timely appealed the June 7, 2024
oral ruling for the December 4, 2024 Order Denying Geron Bail.
Appellants' Motions for Pretrial Bail Reports
Geron filed a September 27, 2024 "Motion for Order
Instructing the [OISC] to Prepare and File a Pretrial Bail
Report for Inmate Debra Geron," and Blas filed an October 2,
2024 "Motion for Order Instructing the [OISC] to Prepare and
File a Pretrial Bail Report for Defendant Brandy Blas"
(collectively, Motions for Pretrial Bail Reports). Geron's
motion challenged the Circuit Court's Order Denying Geron Bail
"without the benefit or detriment of an OISC bail report."
Blas's motion challenged the Circuit Court's Order Denying Blas
Bail "without the benefit of an OISC investigation and pretrial
bail report." Both Appellants' motions referred to previously
filed letters from OISC (OISC letters) in connection with Blas's
March 22, 2024 Motion to Set Bail, and Geron's May 22, 2024
Motion to Set Bail, in which the OISC declined to submit
pretrial bail reports under HRS § 353-10, due to Appellants' no-
bail status.8

8 The OISC letters for both Blas and Geron stated:

Pursuant to HRS 353-0010, persons detained without bail are
not eligible for a pretrial risk assessment.

Should bail be set in this matter the OISC would submit a
Pretrial Bail Report in response to this motion, however,
due to the nature and severity of the instant offenses the

9
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellants' Motions for Pretrial Bail Reports argued
that ordering the OISC investigation and bail report pursuant to
HRS § 353-10 "would allow an independent neutral third party to
assess [Appellants'] pretrial risk assessment regarding risk of
flight, risk of criminal conduct, and risk of violence or harm
to any person or the general public" in the event Appellants
were granted pretrial release. Geron also argued: "Geron's
Catch 22 is that she cannot get a bail report because she is
being held without bail," and in order to properly address
issues surrounding the setting of bail, "she would need a bail
report, which she cannot get because she is being held without
bail."
At the October 7, 2024 hearing on the Motions for
Pretrial Bail Reports, the Circuit Court orally denied both
motions, and filed the October 12, 2024 Joint Order Denying
Pretrial Bail Reports, which Appellants timely appealed.
III. JURISDICTION
Before we turn to Appellants' points of error, we
address the Department's challenge to this court's jurisdiction
over Appellants' appeals in CAAP-24-729 and 24-765 from the
Joint Order Denying Pretrial Bail Reports. The Department
argues that this order does not fall within the collateral order
exception to the final judgment requirement, and this court
lacks jurisdiction. The Department claims that a pretrial bail
report "does not ultimately decide whether a defendant is
released on bail" and "does not involve an important right which
would be irreparably lost if review had to await final

OISC would not support any form of release for the
defendant.

10
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

judgment"; and that these appeals "do[] not resolve an issue
completely collateral to the merits of this case."
"The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law
that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard." State
v. Nakanelua, 134 Hawaiʻi 489, 501, 345 P.3d 155, 167 (2015)
(citation omitted). A trial court's order or decision may be
appealable even in the absence of final judgment under the
collateral order exception, if it: "(1) fully disposes of the
question at issue; (2) resolves an issue completely collateral
to the merits of the case; and (3) involves important rights
which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final
judgment." State v. Nicol, 140 Hawaiʻi 482, 486 n.7, 403 P.3d
259, 263 n.7 (2017) (citation omitted). Under this exception, a
denial of a pretrial motion to reduce bail is appealable, even
in the absence of a final judgment. State v. Johnson, 96 Hawaiʻi
462, 470 n.12, 32 P.3d 106, 114 n.12 (App. 2001).
Here, the "question at issue[,]" i.e., whether the
Circuit Court should have ordered OISC to prepare pretrial bail
reports for Blas and Geron, is one that can be "fully dispose[d]
of" in this appeal even without a final judgment, and is
"completely collateral" to the merits of the underlying criminal
case. See Nicol, 140 Hawaiʻi at 486 n.7, 403 P.3d at 263 n.7
(citation omitted). The question at issue concerns the
statutory eligibility of no-bail detainees for pretrial bail
reports under HRS § 353-10 in connection with a bail hearing.
The resolution of this question involves "important rights" of
pretrial detainees under HRS § 353-10, which would be
irreparably lost if review had to await a final judgment in the
criminal case. See id. Accordingly, we conclude we have
jurisdiction to review Appellants' appeals from the Joint Order
Denying Pretrial Bail Reports.

11
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to
the Circuit Court's pretrial bail decisions. See Carter, 154
Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215 (applying abuse of discretion
standard of review to a trial court's decisions regarding
release on bail and the amount of bail).
We review findings of fact (FOFs) under a "clearly
erroneous standard," and conclusions of law (COLs) "de novo"
under the right/wrong standard. State v. Rodrigues, 145 Hawaiʻi
487, 494, 454 P.3d 428, 435 (2019) (citation omitted).
"Additionally, a conclusion of law that presents mixed questions
of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard
because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of the particular case." Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
"The interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo."
Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215 (citation omitted).
V. DISCUSSION
A. The Order Denying Blas Bail was within the Circuit
Court's discretion.
Blas argues the Circuit Court erred by concluding that
Blas did not rebut the presumption that she posed a serious
flight risk, and that Blas presented serious risks of
obstruction of justice and engaging in illegal activity, based
solely on the charges in the Indictment.
In the Order Denying Blas Bail, the Circuit Court
"took judicial notice of the records and files in this case" and
ruled as follows:

1. On February 14, 2024 [Blas] was indicted by an Oahu
Grand Jury on ten (10) different criminal offenses.

. . . .

12
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4. The Court finds that pursuant to [HRS] Section 804-3,
[Blas] is charged with a serious crime.

5. The Court also notes that the crimes are so serious
that the indictment language allows for the
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Thus,
there is a presumption that exists as to serious risk
of flight.

6. The Court finds that [Blas] has not rebutted that
issue.

7. In addition to being charged with serious offenses, and
a risk of flight, the court must also note that there
is a Hindering in the First Degree charge of which
there is probable cause.

8. As such, because of that finding, there is a serious
risk of obstruction by [Blas]. Additionally, given the
conspiracy charges, there also exists a serious risk
that [Blas] will engage in illegal activity.

. . . .

10. Therefore, the Court finds that [Blas] can and should
be held without bail.

1. The application of the flight risk presumption
was not clearly erroneous.
"[T]he bail denial determination under HRS § 804-3(b)
involves a 'serious crime' determination and an analysis of the
'serious risk' posed by the defendant." Carter, 154 Hawai‘i at
103, 546 P.3d at 1217. "Under HRS § 804-3(b), a person 'may be
denied' bail for a 'serious crime' and if the trial court finds
any of the 'serious risks' in (b)(1) through (b)(4) are
present[.]" Id. at 102, 546 P.3d at 1216 (brackets omitted).
HRS § 804-3(b)(1) sets forth one of the serious risks as "a
serious risk that the person will flee[.]" HRS § 804-3(c)
establishes a "rebuttable presumption" as to the subsection
(b)(1) serious flight risk, "where the person is charged with a
criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for life without
possibility of parole."

13
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Here, the Circuit Court found that the ten counts
against Blas included "serious crime[s][,]" and the Indictment
included a penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility
of parole. After considering the evidence Blas presented at the
hearing, the Circuit Court properly applied the serious flight
risk presumption under HRS § 804-3(b)(1) and (c), and found that
Blas "ha[d] not rebutted" the presumption that she was a serious
flight risk. On this record, the Circuit Court did not clearly
err in its mixed legal and factual determination that the
presumption of serious flight risk was not rebutted. See
Rodrigues, 145 Hawaiʻi at 494, 454 P.3d at 435.
2. The determinations of serious risk of
obstruction and illegal activity were not
clearly erroneous.
A trial court may deny bail where the defendant is
charged with a serious crime under HRS § 804-3(a) and there is a
serious risk under HRS § 804-3(b)(2) or (b)(4), that the
defendant will obstruct justice or engage in illegal activity.
Here, the Circuit Court found that Blas presented both a serious
risk of obstruction and illegal activity, based on the probable
cause determinations supporting the Indictment.
Blas argues that the "mere existence of conspiracy
charges" and "mere indictment for Hindering in the First Degree"
cannot establish the "serious risk" under HRS § 804-3(b), and
that "[t]here must be fact-specific demonstrations of risk, not
generalized suspicions arising from the indictment." Blas does
not supply any legal authority for these arguments.
A grand jury indictment is not just a piece of paper,
and does not rest on "mere" allegations or "generalized
suspicions" as Blas contends. Hawaiʻi law requires an indictment
to be based on probable cause. See Haw. Const. art. I, § 10;
HRS §§ 801-1 and 806-7; Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 7.

14
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"'Probable cause' has been defined as a state of facts as would
lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and
conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the
accused." State v. Taylor, 126 Hawaiʻi 205, 218, 269 P.3d 740,
753 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
"[T]o support an indictment, the prosecution must provide
evidence of each essential element of the charged offense to the
grand jury." Id. (citation omitted). The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court
has described the grand jury as a protective shield against
unfounded charges and arbitrary action, noting that:

[the grand jury] functions as a barrier to reckless or
unfounded charges and serves as a shield against arbitrary
or oppressive action, by ensuring that serious criminal
accusations will be brought only upon the considered
judgment of a representative body of citizens acting under
oath and under judicial instruction and guidance.

State v. Obrero, 151 Hawaiʻi 472, 482, 517 P.3d 755, 765 (2022)
(citations modified). Appellants have pointed to no authority
that precludes trial courts making bail decisions from
considering the probable cause determinations of a grand jury,
which has vetted the serious criminal accusations set forth in
an indictment. See id.; Taylor, 126 Hawaiʻi at 218, 269 P.3d at
753.
Here, the Circuit Court specifically referenced the
two conspiracy charges (Counts 5, 10) and hindering prosecution
charge (Count 15) in the Indictment to determine that Blas
presented serious risks of illegal activity and obstruction.
The Indictment in Counts 5 and 10 alleged Blas conspired to
commit kidnapping and first-degree unlawful imprisonment by
concealing the existence of the conspiracy by delaying
notification to police when she and her co-conspirators found
the alleged victim unresponsive; providing false information to
emergency workers about the alleged victim's condition and

15
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

circumstances; and deleting text messages between herself and
co-conspirator Geron. The Indictment also alleged in Count 15
that Blas hindered the prosecution of Geron, by "suppressing, by
an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction" physical
evidence that may have aided in Geron's prosecution. The
Circuit Court's reliance on the grand jury's probable cause
determinations to deny bail for Blas under HRS § 804-3(b)(2) and
(b)(4) was not wrong, and its "serious risk" determinations were
not clearly erroneous. See Rodrigues, 145 Hawaiʻi at 494, 454
P.3d at 435.
Accordingly, we conclude the Order Denying Blas Bail
was within the scope of the Circuit Court's discretion. See
Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215.
B. The Order Denying Geron Bail was within the Circuit
Court's discretion.
Geron argues that the Circuit Court erred by (1)
concluding that Geron "did not rebut the presumption that she
presents a serious risk of engaging in illegal activity[,]"9 and
(2) "determining that a charge of Hindering in the First Degree
alone justified the finding of a serious risk of obstruction of
justice."
The Circuit Court found that Geron posed a serious
risk of obstruction under HRS § 804-3(b)(2) in COL 12 of its
order, and serious risk of illegal activity under HRS § 804-
3(b)(4) in COL 14, as follows:

12. Here, the Court finds and concludes that [Geron] does
present a serious risk of obstructing or attempting to
obstruct justice. The Oahu Grand Jury found probable
cause that [Geron] engaged in the offense of Hindering

9 Under HRS § 804-3(c), a rebuttable presumption that the defendant
presents a serious risk of engaging in illegal activity arises if the
defendant has a prior conviction for a serious crime involving violence, is
already on bail on a felony charge involving violence, or is on probation or
parole for a serious crime involving violence.

16
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Prosecution in the First Degree related to the
investigation of this case. . . . There was no evidence
presented at the hearing that [Geron] did not pose a
serious risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct
justice. The Court adopts the probable cause finding
by the Oahu Grand Jury as evidence that [Geron] poses a
serious risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct
justice. Cf. State v. Obrero, 151 Hawaiʻi 472, 482,
517 P.3d 755, 765 (2022) (extolling the virtue of a
grand jury as a barrier to "reckless and unfounded
charges."). The second risk factor of HRS §804-3(b)
applies.

. . . .

14. Here, the Court finds and concludes that [Geron] does
present a serious risk that she will engage in illegal
activity. The Oahu Grand Jury found probable cause
that [Geron] engaged in a conspiracy to commit
Kidnapping and a conspiracy to commit Unlawful
Imprisonment in the First Degree. The Oahu Grand Jury
found probable cause that both conspiracies were
committed with two other individuals, and that [Geron]
engaged in overt acts to further the conspiracies.
. . . There was no evidence presented at the hearing
that [Geron] does not pose a serious risk of engaging
in illegal activity. The Court adopts the probable
cause finding by the Oahu Grand Jury as evidence that
[Geron] poses a serious risk that she will engage in
illegal activity. Cf. State v. Obrero, 151 Hawaiʻi
472, 482, 517 P.3d 755, 765 (2022) (extolling the
virtue of a grand jury as a barrier to "reckless and
unfounded charges."). The fourth risk factor of HRS§
804-3(b) applies.

(Emphases added.)
Geron's first contention that Geron rebutted "the
presumption that she presents a serious risk of engaging in
illegal activity" lacks basis because the Circuit Court did not
apply this presumption. This presumption under HRS § 804-3(c)
involves a prior conviction for a crime of violence, or
probation, parole, or bail status involving a crime of violence.
Geron's second challenge is to the Circuit Court's
determination that she presented a serious risk of obstruction,
and Geron also appears to challenge the serious risk of illegal
activity determination. Regarding the latter determination,
Geron argues that "[t]he mere existence of conspiracy charges

17
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

cannot independently satisfy the requirement to establish a
'serious risk' under HRS §804-3(b)(4)," and "[t]here must be
fact-specific demonstrations of risk, not generalized suspicions
arising from the indictment." Geron similarly challenges the
serious risk of obstruction determination, arguing that "the
mere indictment for Hindering in the First Degree, absent
specific evidence of any action or attempt by Geron to obstruct
justice" was insufficient, and that "[n]o substantial evidence"
supported the Circuit Court's determination of serious risk of
obstruction. Geron cites no legal authority to support these
challenges to the Circuit Court's "serious risk" determinations.
Here, in COLs 12 and 14 set forth above, the Circuit
Court specifically noted and considered the two conspiracy
charges (Counts 7, 12) and hindering prosecution charge (Count
16) in the Indictment to determine that Geron presented serious
risks of illegal activity and obstruction. The Indictment, in
Counts 7, 12 and 16, contained detailed allegations against
Geron identical to the allegations against Blas set forth supra.
The Circuit Court's reliance on the grand jury's probable cause
determinations to deny bail for Geron under HRS § 804-3(b)(2)
and (b)(4) was not wrong, and its "serious risk" determinations
were not clearly erroneous. See Rodrigues, 145 Hawaiʻi at 494,
454 P.3d at 435.
Accordingly, we conclude the Order Denying Geron Bail
was within the scope of the Circuit Court's discretion. See
Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215.
C. The Joint Order Denying Pretrial Bail Reports was
within the Circuit Court's discretion.
The Circuit Court made the following findings
(Findings) in its Joint Order Denying Pretrial Bail Reports
explaining why it would not order pretrial bail reports in this
case:
18
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2. The Court agrees with counsel, that if the court ordered
the [OISC] to prepare the Pretrial Bail report it would.

3. The court finds that the [OISC] did not have to prepare
a pretrial bail report for this case.

4. The Court finds that there were hearings that were
conducted for [Blas] and [Geron] regarding eligibility
for bail. These were evidentiary hearings where
witnesses were called, testified, and cross examined at
length. During these hearings, the Court vetted all the
circumstances before it to make its decision that
Defendants [Blas] and [Geron] can and should be held
without bail.

5. The Court finds that a Pretrial Bail Report would not
have any additional information that would have been
relied on by the Court in crafting its decision.

(Emphases added.)
Appellants contend the Circuit Court "erred as a
matter of law in concluding that [OISC] was not required to
prepare a pretrial bail report under [HRS] §353-10,"10 and
"abused its discretion" by denying the Motions for Pretrial Bail
Reports. The Department counters that Appellants did not meet
"the statutory requirements necessitating" a pretrial bail
report under HRS § 353-10(b)(3) due to their no-bail status.
The parties thus disagree as to whether, and under what
circumstances, a no-bail detainee is eligible for a pretrial
bail report under HRS § 353-10.
1. Under Carter, a trial court may not set bail
for a no-bail detainee for the purpose of
obtaining a pretrial bail report.
We first address the parties' conflicting arguments
regarding the propriety of a trial court's setting of bail for
the purpose of obtaining a pretrial bail report for a no-bail

10 Appellants' characterization of this determination in Finding 3
is inaccurate. Finding 3 does not mention the statute. We address Finding 3
infra.

19
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

detainee, which was the method employed by the trial court in
Carter.
Appellants argue that "in contrast to the trial
court's procedure used to obtain a pretrial bail report in
Carter, [154 Hawaiʻi 96, 546 P.3d 1210], a circuit court has
jurisdiction to order a pretrial bail report and risk assessment
without the need for setting a bail amount." The Department
responds that: "If the court wanted to consider bail and wanted
a pretrial bail report, the court could have set [a] bail amount
and then obtain a pretrial bail report to consider whether Blas
would be eligible and possibly reduce the bail amount." The
Department's proffered solution is identical to OISC's position
below, see footnote 8 supra, that no pretrial bail report would
be prepared because "persons detained without bail are not
eligible for a pretrial risk assessment" under HRS § 353-10, but
that "OISC would submit a Pretrial Bail Report" for the bail
motion if bail was set.
The Department and OISC's suggestions that a trial
court should set bail for the purpose of obtaining a pretrial
bail report for a no-bail detainee run afoul of Carter. 154
Hawaiʻi at 104, 546 P.3d at 1218. In Carter, the trial court
found that "no bail conditions could mitigate the non-appearance
and public safety risks posed by" the defendant but nevertheless
"set cash bail in the face of such risks" because it understood
that "persons detained without bail are not eligible for a
pretrial risk assessment." Id. at 98-99, 104, 546 P.3d at 1212-
13, 1218. We held that the trial court's setting of $3.3
million bail for an indigent defendant for the purpose of
obtaining a pretrial bail report constituted an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 104, 546 P.3d at 1218. We explained that as
applied to high-risk defendants like Carter, who was charged

20
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

with serious crimes and presented serious risks, the
determination of bail/no-bail is a risk-based analysis pursuant
to HRS § 804-3, which is distinct from the financial
circumstances analysis used to determine a "reasonable" amount
of bail under HRS § 804-9. Id. at 101-03, 546 P.3d at 1215-17.
Blas and Geron, like Carter, are on no-bail status because of
the multiple serious risks the Circuit Court determined they
presented.
In Carter, we clarified why the setting of bail for
such high-risk, no-bail detainees for the purpose of obtaining a
bail report contravened applicable statutes. In this case, we
explain that such an approach is also unnecessary because we
conclude a trial court may order a pretrial bail report for a
no-bail detainee after the first three days of the detainee's
admission to the correctional center have passed.
2. While HRS § 353-10(b) unambiguously excludes
no-bail detainees from eligibility for
expedited pretrial risk assessments and
pretrial bail reports, the statute's silence
regarding non-expedited pretrial risk
assessments and bail reports for any detainee
creates an ambiguity.
Appellants acknowledge that HRS § 353-10(b)(3)'s
requirement that OISC conduct an expedited pretrial risk
assessment "shall not apply to" certain categories of detainees,
including "persons detained without bail," such as Appellants.
Appellants argue, however, that "[t]here was nothing precluding
or excluding the circuit court from ordering a pretrial risk
assessment and pretrial bail report at any time thereafter or
upon a motion for supervised release or the setting of bail."
(Emphasis added.)
The Department disagrees, on grounds that: "[t]he
statute clearly carves out an exception that a pretrial risk

21
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

assessment does not need to be completed if a person is being
detained without bail[,]" and "even though [Appellants] w[ere]
requesting a pretrial bail report rather than a pretrial risk
assessment, the bail report should be denied because the bail
report contains a complete copy of the risk assessment which
does not need to be provided since [Appellants are] being
detained without bail."
As explained below, we find persuasive Appellants'
argument that after the initial expedited period has passed,
"nothing" precludes the trial court "from ordering a pretrial
risk assessment and pretrial bail report at any time
thereafter."
We are guided by the following principles of statutory
construction:

First, the fundamental starting point for statutory
interpretation is the language of the statute itself.
Second, where the statutory language is plain and
unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain
and obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of
statutory construction is our foremost obligation to
ascertain and give effect to the intention of the
legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the
language contained in the statute itself. Fourth, where
there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness
or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an
ambiguity exists.

Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215 (citation omitted).
HRS § 353-10(b)(3) and (b)(9) address pretrial bail
reports and pretrial risk assessments that are completed on an
expedited basis. HRS § 353-10(b)(3)'s language that "this
paragraph shall not apply to . . . persons detained without
bail" unambiguously provides that certain categories of
detainees, including the no-bail detainees at issue here, are
excluded from the expedited pretrial risk assessment

22
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

requirement. Thus, ISCs are not required to conduct expedited
pretrial risk assessments for no-bail detainees.
HRS § 353-10(b)(9) similarly provides that ISCs must
provide expedited pretrial bail reports "to the courts" within
three working days of the detainee's admission, and requires a
"complete copy of the executed pretrial risk assessment" to "be
included in the pretrial bail report." Reading both subsections
(b)(3) and (b)(9) together, ISCs are thus not required to
provide expedited pretrial bail reports to the courts for no-
bail detainees, because no expedited pretrial risk assessments
for mandatory inclusion in a pretrial bail report are conducted
for such detainees. This means that no-bail detainees are
ineligible for an expedited pretrial bail report. Therefore,
under a plain reading of HRS § 353-10(b)(3) and (b)(9), no-bail
detainees are unambiguously excluded from, and ineligible for,
expedited pretrial risk assessments and pretrial bail reports.
HRS § 353-10(b) does not address pretrial risk
assessments and pretrial bail reports that may be requested
after the three-day expedited period has passed. The statute
does not expressly permit or preclude non-expedited pretrial
bail reports. Despite the statutory silence regarding non-
expedited pretrial bail reports, the parties in this case do not
dispute OISC's general practice of providing such reports.11
Rather, Appellants and the Department specifically disagree on
whether a no-bail detainee is eligible for any pretrial bail

11 In the instant case, OISC refused to submit pretrial bail reports
for Appellants in letters filed on March 28, 2024 and May 30, 2024, more than
three working days after Appellants were arrested on February 16, 2024. In
those letters, sent during the non-expedited time frame, OISC's refusals to
provide pretrial bail reports were based on Appellants' no-bail status, not
because the expedited period had passed. OISC also offered to prepare bail
reports if bail were set, which indicated that its refusal was not based on
the expiration of the three-working-day expedited period, and that OISC was
in agreement with the practice of providing non-expedited pretrial bail
reports generally.

23
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

report under HRS § 353-10(b). Appellants argue that the no-bail
detainees' ineligibility for pretrial bail reports is based on
timing, i.e., that the ineligibility is limited to the three-day
expedited period only, and no-bail detainees are eligible
thereafter. On the other hand, the Department argues that no-
bail detainees are permanently ineligible for pretrial bail
reports based on their status as no-bail detainees.
The ISC statute's silence regarding non-expedited
pretrial risk assessments and bail reports renders it ambiguous.
See Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at 1215. "[C]ourts may
resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent[,]"
and "[o]ne avenue is the use of legislative history as an
interpretive tool." Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawaiʻi
478, 488, 575 P.3d 568, 578 (2025) (citation omitted). We thus
look to the legislative history of HRS § 353-10 to aid our
interpretation.
3. The legislative history of HRS § 353-10 and
related statutes reflects the legislature's
intent to provide increased opportunities for
bail review and its designation of ISCs' "core
responsibility" as the preparation of pretrial
bail reports.
HRS § 353-10 has been amended numerous times since its
original enactment in 1987. The amendments material to the
issues here, regarding ISCs' preparation of pretrial bail
reports generally, and the ineligibility of no-bail detainees
for expedited pretrial risk assessments and expedited pretrial
bail reports, were made in 2012 Act 141, 2012 Act 139, 2013 Act
67, and 2019 Act 179. We discuss each of these Acts below.
2012 Act 141 (effective July 1, 2012)
The 2012 legislature made two amendments to the ISC
statute, set forth in Act 141 and Act 139. The first one, Act
141, amended subsection (3) by removing "presentence

24
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

assessments" to focus ISCs on providing "pretrial assessments,"
and added a new section for ISCs' "pretrial supervision" of
persons who were released, as follows:

§353-10 Reentry intake service centers. . . .

The centers shall:

. . . .

(3) Provide pretrial assessments on adult offenders
[for the courts and assist in the conduct of
presentence assessments on adult offenders and
the preparation of presentence reports when
requested by the courts;] that are consented to
by the defendant or that are ordered by the
court;

. . . .

(11) Provide continuing supervision and control of
persons ordered to be placed on pretrial
supervision by the court and persons ordered by
the director."

2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 141, § 1 at 507-08 (strikethroughs,
underscoring, and brackets in original). The legislature
indicated that: "The purpose of this measure is to define how
pre-trial bail assessments are initiated, and to provide
statutory authority to the [Department] to supervise pre-trial
persons ordered released from custody by the courts." H. Stand.
Comm. Rep. No. 603-12, in 2012 House Journal, at 1176.
As relevant here, this version of the statute did not
exclude any categories of detainees from pretrial assessments;
contained no expedited deadlines for the pretrial assessments;
and did not reference pretrial bail reports at all.
2012 Act 139 (effective January 1, 2013)
The second amendment to the ISC statute the 2012
legislature made was set forth in Act 139, which added sections
(a) and (b) to HRS § 353-10. Section (3) became subsection
(b)(3), which the legislature modified by specifying "internal

25
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pretrial risk assessments," defining "pretrial risk assessment,"
adding expediting language for pretrial risk assessments, and
excluding certain categories of detainees from expedited
pretrial risk assessments, as follows:

§353-10 Reentry intake service centers. (a) There
shall be within the department of public safety, a reentry
intake service center for adults in each of the counties
. . . .

(b) The centers shall:

. . . .

(3) [Provide] Conduct internal pretrial risk
assessments on adult offenders [for the courts
and assist in the conduct of presentence
assessments on adult offenders and the
preparation of presentence reports when
requested by the courts;] within three working
days of admission to a community correctional
center which shall then be provided to the
court for its consideration; provided that this
paragraph shall not apply to persons subject to
county or state detainers, holds, or persons
detained without bail, persons detained for
probation violation, persons facing revocation
of bail or supervised release, and persons who
have had a pretrial risk assessment completed
prior to admission to a community correctional
center. For purposes of this paragraph,
"pretrial risk assessment" means an objective,
research-based, validated assessment tool that
measures a defendant's risk of flight and risk
of criminal conduct while on pretrial release
pending adjudication;

. . . .

2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 139, § 3 at 500-01 (strikethroughs,
underscoring, and brackets in original).
The policy rationale for imposing a three-working-day
deadline was rooted in the legislature's finding that "Hawaiʻi's
pre-trial process is one of the longest in the nation[,]" taking
"several months on average," in contrast to bail review
occurring in "just days or a few weeks in other jurisdictions,"

26
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

resulting in "millions of dollars spent needlessly on a growing
pretrial population[.]" S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2146, in 2012
Senate Journal, at 876. As the legislature stated,

[t]he pretrial [detainee] population has increased due to
longer lengths of stay. The purpose of this [amendment] is
to require that an objective assessment be conducted within
the first three working days of a person's commitment to a
community correctional center to allow the courts to more
quickly exercise discretion in determining whether to
release a pre-trial offender.

2012 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 139, § 2 at 500 (emphasis added). More
generally, the legislature indicated that its intent was to,
inter alia, "reduce costly inefficiencies" in the "pretrial
process," promote "more effective public safety strategies[,]"
and reduce the "pretrial population" by requiring expedited
assessments for quicker bail review by the courts. 2012 Haw.
Sess. Laws Act 139, §§ 1-2 at 500.
As relevant here, this amendment made expedited
pretrial risk assessments a requirement, and at the same time,
excluded no-bail detainees from this new requirement. Id.
2013 Act 67 (effective July 1, 2013)
The 2013 legislature again amended HRS § 353-10 in Act
67 Section 1, adding a new subsection (b)(8),12 requiring ISCs to
provide pretrial bail reports, as follows:

(b) The centers shall:

. . . .

(3) [[(A)] Provide pretrial assessments on adult
offenders that are consented to by the
defendant or that are ordered by the court; and
[(B)]] Conduct internal pretrial risk
assessments on adult offenders within three
working days of admission to a community
correctional center which shall then be
provided to the court for its consideration;

12 Now subsection (b)(9). Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 13 at 581.

27
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provided that this paragraph shall not apply to
persons subject to county or state detainers,
holds, or persons detained without bail,
persons detained for probation violation,
persons facing revocation of bail or supervised
release, and persons who have had a pretrial
risk assessment completed prior to admission to
a community correctional center. For purposes
of this [[]subparagraph[]], "pretrial risk
assessment" means an objective, research-based,
validated assessment tool that measures a
defendant's risk of flight and risk of criminal
conduct while on pretrial release pending
adjudication;

. . . .

(8) Provide pretrial bail reports to the courts on
adult offenders that are consented to by the
defendant or that are ordered by the court.
The pretrial bail reports shall be confidential
and shall not be deemed to be public records.
A copy of a pretrial bail report shall be
provided only:

(A) To the defendant or defendant's counsel;

(B) To the prosecuting attorney;

(D) To any psychiatrist, psychologist, or
other treatment practitioner who is
treating the defendant pursuant to a
court order;

(E) Upon request, to the adult client
services branch; and

(F) In accordance with applicable laws,
persons, or entities doing research.

2013 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 67, § 1 at 124-25 (strikethroughs,
underscoring, and brackets in original). The legislature
indicated "[t]he purpose and intent of this measure" was to
"[r]equire [ISC]s to provide pretrial bail reports to the courts
on adult offenders that are consented to by the defendant or
that are ordered by the court"; and to "[p]rovide statutory
authority to the courts to treat information contained in the

28
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pretrial bail reports as confidential[.]" S. Stand. Comm. Rep.
No. 338, in 2013 Senate Journal, at 1022. Through various
committee reports, the legislature emphasized that the ISCs'
raison d'être, or "core responsibility," was to provide pretrial
bail reports to enable courts to "receive detailed information,
such as the defendant's medical, mental health, and substance
abuse history, to assist with pretrial release decision-making."
S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 338, in 2013 Senate Journal, at 1022;
see also S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 536, in 2013 Senate Journal,
at 1120 (identifying ISCs' "core responsibility in providing
bail reports to the court"); H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1195, in
2013 House Journal, at 1337 (clarifying ISCs' "core
responsibility" as providing "pretrial bail reports . . . to the
courts"); H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1572, in 2013 House Journal,
at 1458 (same).
As relevant here, the 2013 amendments reflected the
legislature's designation of ISCs' "core responsibility" as the
preparation of pretrial bail reports, but did not contain any
expediting language for such pretrial bail reports or mandate
the inclusion of a pretrial risk assessment in the pretrial bail
report.
2019 Act 179 (effective January 1, 2020)
The 2019 legislature amended HRS § 353-10 to its
current iteration,13 by clarifying in subsections (b)(8) and
(b)(9) that a pretrial bail report must include the pretrial
risk assessment, as well as information regarding a detainee's
"financial circumstances." 2019 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 13
at 581. The 2019 Amendments made subsection (b)(9) (regarding
pretrial bail reports) consistent with (b)(3) (regarding

13 HRS § 353-10 was amended again in 2022, but the changes were non-
substantive. 2022 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 278, § 29 at 793.

29
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pretrial risk assessments) by adding the expediting language for
pretrial bail reports, as follows:

(b) The centers shall:

. . . .

(3) Conduct internal pretrial risk assessments on
adult offenders within three working days of
admission to a community correctional center
[which shall then be provided to the court for
its consideration]; provided that this
paragraph shall not apply to persons subject to
county or state detainers[,] or holds, [or]
persons detained without bail, persons detained
for probation violation, persons facing
revocation of bail or supervised release, and
persons who have had a pretrial risk assessment
completed prior to admission to a community
correctional center. For purposes of this
[[]paragraph[]], "pretrial risk assessment"
means an objective, research-based, validated
assessment tool that measures [a defendant's]
an offender's risk of flight, [and] risk of
criminal conduct, and risk of violence or harm
to any person or the general public while on
pretrial release pending adjudication[;]. . . .

. . . .

(8) Make inquiry with the offender concerning the
offender's financial circumstances and include
this information in the bail report; provided
that the department of public safety's pretrial
services officers shall be provided limited
access for the purpose of viewing other state
agencies' relevant data related to an
offender's employment wages and taxes;

[(8)] (9) Provide pretrial bail reports to the courts
on adult offenders, within three working days
of admission of the offender to a community
correctional center, that are [consented to by
the defendant or that are] ordered by the
court[.] or consented to by the offender. A
complete copy of the executed pretrial risk
assessment delineating the scored items, the
total score, any administrative scoring
overrides applied, and written explanations for
administrative scoring overrides, shall be
included in the pretrial bail report. The
pretrial bail reports shall be confidential and
shall not be deemed to be public records. . . .

30
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Id. at 580-81 (strikethroughs, underscoring, and brackets in
original).
The 2019 amendments were in response to a 2018 Hawaiʻi
State Judiciary Criminal Pretrial Task Force report that
recommended "legislation and revisions to criminal pretrial
practices and procedures to increase public safety while
maximizing pretrial release of those who do not pose a danger or
a flight risk[.]" 2019 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 11 at 579;
Hawaiʻi State Judiciary, Hawaiʻi Criminal Pretrial Reform:
Recommendations of the Criminal Pretrial Task Force to the
Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaiʻi (2018). The
legislature's purpose for these amendments to HRS § 353-10 was
"to improve clarity and consistency in the criminal pretrial
system" by requiring ISCs to "[c]onduct pretrial risk
assessments and prepare bail reports within three working days
of the offender's admission"; "[i]nquire and report on the
offender's financial circumstances"; and "[i]nclude the fully
executed pretrial risk assessment as part of the bail report[.]"
2019 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 12 at 580.
Two additional related statutes, establishing an
expedited bail hearing and mandating periodic bail reviews, were
also enacted in Act 179, reflecting the legislature's intent to
provide increased opportunities for bail review. See HRS § 1-16
(2009) (providing that "[l]aws in pari materia, or upon the same
subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other"
and that "[w]hat is clear in one statute may be called in aid to
explain what is doubtful in another"). The first related
statute, HRS § 804-7.5, established a new statutory right to a
"prompt" bail hearing, defining "prompt hearing" as one "that
occurs at the time of the defendant's arraignment, or as soon as

31
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

practicable."14 2019 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 15 at 582. The
second related statute, HRS § 353-6.2, set forth a new mandate
for community correctional centers to conduct "periodic reviews
of pretrial detainees" (periodic bail review) at least once
"every three months" to "reassess" a detainee's bail status by
reviewing "whether new information or a change in circumstances"
warranted reconsideration of such status; to transmit the
periodic bail review report to the court and counsels; and for a
court hearing to be conducted on any motion to modify bail filed
pursuant to a periodic bail review report.15 2019 Haw. Sess.

14 HRS § 804-7.5(b) (2014 & 2024 Supp.), entitled "Right to a prompt
hearing; release or detention," provides for a prompt bail hearing, as
follows:

(b) Upon formal charge and detention, a defendant shall have the
right to a prompt hearing concerning:

(1) Release or detention; and

(2) Whether any condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably ensure:

(A) The defendant's appearance as required; and

(B) The safety of any other person and the community.

(c) At the hearing, the defendant shall have the right to be
represented by counsel . . . . The defendant shall be
afforded an opportunity to testify at the hearing. The
defendant and the prosecution shall both be afforded an
opportunity to present information by proffer or otherwise.

(d) The rules concerning the admissibility of evidence in
criminal trials shall not apply to the presentation and
consideration of information at the hearing.

(e) The defendant may be detained pending completion of the
hearing.
15 HRS § 353-6.2 (2015 & 2024 Supp.), entitled "Community
correctional centers; periodic reviews of pretrial detainees," provides:

(a) The relevant community correctional centers, on a
periodic basis but no less frequently than every three
months, shall conduct reviews of pretrial detainees to
reassess whether a detainee should remain in custody or
whether new information or a change in circumstances

32
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Laws Act 179, § 22 at 585. The legislature's purpose for
mandatory periodic bail reviews was "to afford pretrial
detainees greater and continuing opportunities to be released"
by requiring "regular reviews . . . to identify pretrial
defendants who may be appropriate for pretrial release or
supervision[,]" and "[p]roviding the results of these reviews to
the courts who may then consider modifying the previously issued
bail order." 2019 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 179, § 21 at 585. The
legislature indicated the 2019 amendments were enacted to
"[s]upport best practices for an effective correctional system"
and to "[i]mplement certain recommendations" of the Criminal
Pretrial Task Force. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 149, in 2019 Senate
Journal, at 883, 2019 House Journal, at 1609.
The legislative history of HRS § 353-10(b) set forth
above reflects the legislature's desire to facilitate the
efficient and safe reduction of the pretrial detainee population
and ease the chronic overcrowding in community correctional
centers. The legislature designated the preparation of pretrial
bail reports as the ISCs' "core responsibility," which would aid
the courts in their bail review. See, e.g., S. Stand. Comm.
Rep. No. 338, in 2013 Senate Journal, at 1022.
4. HRS § 353-10(b) does not prohibit ISCs from
conducting non-expedited pretrial risk
assessments and providing non-expedited

warrants reconsideration of a detainee's pretrial
release or supervision.

(b) For each review conducted pursuant to subsection (a),
the relevant community correctional center shall
transmit its findings and recommendations by
correspondence or electronically to the appropriate
court, prosecuting attorney, and defense counsel.

(c) If a motion to modify bail is filed pursuant to a
recommendation made pursuant to subsection (b), a hearing
shall be scheduled at which the court shall consider the
motion.

33
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pretrial bail reports to the courts for any
detainee, even one held without bail, upon
court request.
The legislature intended to support increased
opportunities for bail review -- at the beginning of a
detainee's admission to a community center, by requiring
expedited pretrial bail reports that would be prepared in time
for the prompt bail hearing under HRS §§ 353-10(b) and 804-7.5
-- and continuing throughout a detainee's stay at the center, by
mandatory periodic bail reviews for each pretrial detainee at
least once every three months, with transmission of those
reports to the trial court and counsels under HRS § 353-6.2.
When reading HRS § 353-10(b) together with the periodic bail
review mandated by HRS § 353-6.2 (requiring county correctional
centers to conduct three-month reviews of all pretrial detainees
without an exception for no-bail detainees), the ISC statute
does not prohibit an ISC from conducting a non-expedited
pretrial risk assessment or from preparing a non-expedited
pretrial bail report upon court request, even for a no-bail
detainee. See HRS § 1-16.
To read HRS § 353-10(b) as disallowing non-expedited
pretrial risk assessments and pretrial bail reports, where such
specific prohibitory language is not found in the statute, would
contravene the legislature's intent. We must avoid statutory
interpretation that is "inconsistent, contradictory, and
illogical." Moranz v. Harbor Mall, LLC, 150 Hawaiʻi 387, 398,
502 P.3d 488, 499 (2022) (citation modified). A pretrial
detainee's personal circumstances, whether familial, financial,
or legal, may change during their detention awaiting trial. New
information pertinent to their bail status may arise. Such new
information or changed circumstances warrant informed bail
review, aided by a pretrial bail report provided by the ISC.

34
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The ISC's provision of a non-expedited pretrial bail report,
even for a no-bail detainee, is consistent with the
legislature's intent to provide increased opportunities for bail
review and for the ISC to fulfill its core responsibility of
providing pretrial bail reports to the courts. Accordingly, we
conclude that a trial court may request a non-expedited pretrial
bail report for any detainee, even one held without bail.
5. The Circuit Court's decision to not order
pretrial bail reports under the circumstances
of this case was within the scope of its
discretion.
Finally, we address Appellants' challenges to Finding
3, in which the Circuit Court stated that OISC "did not have to
prepare a pretrial bail report for this case[,]" and their
contention that OISC was required, even without a court order,
to automatically prepare a pretrial bail report "upon the filing
of a bail motion."
Appellants' argument that OISC is required to
automatically prepare a pretrial bail report whenever a bail
motion is filed "regardless of a court order[,]" is not
supported by Carter, the sole legal authority upon which
Appellants rely. Under HRS § 353-10, only expedited pretrial
bail reports are automatically prepared by ISCs regardless of
whether a motion is filed. We have already explained supra,
that trial courts may request non-expedited pretrial bail
reports to aid in their bail review, even for no-bail detainees.
Here, Finding 3 (that OISC "did not have to prepare a
pretrial bail report") must be viewed in context with Finding 2
preceding it, and Findings 4 and 5 that follow it. The Circuit
Court acknowledged in Finding 2 that while it possessed the
authority to order OISC to prepare pretrial bail reports, the
Circuit Court declined to do so in Finding 3, finding that OISC

35
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"did not have to prepare a pretrial bail report for this case."
The Circuit Court then explained in Findings 4 and 5 why it
elected not to order pretrial bail reports, citing the prior
evidentiary bail hearings it had already conducted, during which
the court "vetted all the circumstances" and "witnesses were
called, testified, and cross examined at length." See Finding
4. Appellants' Motions for Pretrial Bail Reports did not
present new information regarding their personal, familial,
financial, or legal circumstances warranting another bail
review, for which a non-expedited pretrial bail report would be
useful. Under these specific circumstances, we conclude the
Circuit Court's factual determination in Finding 5, that "a
Pretrial Bail Report would not have any additional information
that would have been relied on by the Court in crafting its
decision" to deny bail, was not clearly erroneous. See
Rodrigues, 145 Hawaiʻi at 494, 454 P.3d at 435.
Accordingly, we conclude the Joint Order Denying
Pretrial Bail Reports was within the scope of the Circuit
Court's discretion. See Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101, 546 P.3d at
1215.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the October 7,
2024 Order Denying Blas Bail; the December 4, 2024 Order Denying
Geron Bail; and the October 12, 2024 Joint Order Denying
Pretrial Bail Reports, all filed by the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit.

36
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Walter J. Rodby,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant
Debra Geron
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
in CAAP-24-458 and CAAP-24-729
Associate Judge
Harrison L. Kiehm,
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Defendant-Appellant
Associate Judge
Brandy Blas
in CAAP-24-667 and CAAP-24-765

Loren J. Thomas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu
for Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Hawai‘i
in CAAP-24-458 and CAAP-24-667

Brenton A. Inouye,
Deputy Attorney General
for Interested Party-Appellee
State of Hawai‘i Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation
in CAAP-24-729 and CAAP-24-765