HRS 0626-0001-0511 ANNOTATIONS

This rule closely resembles Uniform Rule of Evidence 510. The sole justification for any rule of privilege is protection of a personal right of confidentiality that is recognized to be of greater societal importance than the principle of free disclosure of all relevant evidence in a judicial proceeding. Any intentional disclosure by the holder of the privilege defeats this purpose and eliminates the necessity for the privilege in that instance. Consistent with this, waiver of privilege is generally absolute. Once confidentiality has been destroyed by intentional disclosure, the holder of the privilege may not reinvoke it, and the evidence is as admissible as if no privilege had initially existed.

Hawaii courts have recognized the principle of waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure, see McKeague v. Freitas, 40 H. 108 (1953); Territory v. Cabrinha, 24 H. 621 (1919); Takamori v. Kanai, 11 H. 1 (1897).

Defendant established that documents withheld from production were attorney-client communications which remained privileged where disclosure to Farm Credit Administration was not voluntary or consensual. 925 F. Supp. 1478.

Natural mother of child waived alleged privilege when she testified to a significant part of the alleged privileged matter. 85 H. 165 (App.), 938 P.2d 1184.