What rule or caselaw holds that a proponent of an assertion bears the burden of proof?
The clearest Hawaii authority is Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(5): in agency contested cases, “the party initiating the proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion,” by a preponderance of the evidence.[1] Hawaii’s evidence rules similarly define “burden of proof” as the obligation to establish a fact by the required degree of belief.[2]
Most direct authority
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(5)
“Except as otherwise provided by law, the party initiating the proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion. The degree or quantum of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence.”[1]
That statute is the best answer if you mean administrative contested cases in Hawaii.
Related Hawaii evidence rule
Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence, Haw. R. Evid. 301 defines:
- “burden of producing evidence” as the obligation to introduce evidence sufficient to avoid an adverse peremptory finding; and
- “burden of proof” as the obligation to establish by evidence the requisite degree of belief in the trier of fact.[2]
Case law
The search results do not supply a general Hawaii case stating, in those exact words, that “the proponent of an assertion bears the burden of proof.” The closest authority provided is State v. Okumura, 78 Haw. 383, 894 P.2d 80 (1995), which quotes earlier Hawaii cases on burdens in the specific context of challenging eyewitness identification.[3] That is more specific than a general burden-of-proof rule.
Bottom line
If you need a Hawaii citation for the general proposition that the party advancing a claim or assertion bears the burden of proof, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(5) is the strongest authority in the materials provided, and Haw. R. Evid. 301 supplies the evidentiary definitions.[1][2]