HRS 0626-0001-0408 ANNOTATIONS

This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 408. The rule has been accepted in Hawaii, see First Bank of Hilo v. Maguire, 25 H. 43, 49-50 (1919); HRCP 68.

Based on record, no evidence that statements made in course of compromise negotiations. 67 H. 389, 688 P.2d 1145.

Trial court properly excluded evidence of insurer's settlement offer which court determined would be used to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. 82 H. 120, 920 P.2d 334.

In a criminal trial, evidence of an accused's offer to pay value to a complainant in an attempt to avoid prosecution is not excludable under this rule. 92 H. 161, 988 P.2d 1153.

This rule applies in criminal proceedings. 92 H. 161, 988 P.2d 1153.

Testimony properly excluded where it concerned memo regarding settlement agreement. 5 H. App. 174, 683 P.2d 833.

Statement inadmissible because made during settlement negotiations. 5 H. App. 232, 687 P.2d 6.

By virtue of this rule, related compromises or attempts to compromise civil liability are not admissible in a criminal trial because of danger that the evidence may be taken as criminal guilt. 79 H. 265 (App.), 900 P.2d 1332.

Seller's offer to pay buyer $22,000 in exchange for buyer's cancellation of DROA was promise to pay a valuable consideration to compromise a claim disputed as to validity or amount and was thus not admissible to prove liability for, or invalidity of, buyer's claim against seller. 84 H. 162 (App.), 931 P.2d 604.