Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brothers Albert Ian Schweitzer and Shawn Schweitzer sought compensation for wrongful imprisonment under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 661B, which requires proving "actual innocence." They requested investigative materials from the Hawai‘i County Police Department (HPD) and the County of Hawai‘i Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (CHOPA) to support their claim. HPD and CHOPA refused, citing an ongoing investigation.In 2023, Ian Schweitzer filed a Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition to vacate his conviction based on new DNA evidence pointing to another individual. The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit granted the petition, vacating Ian's conviction. Shawn Schweitzer subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which the court also granted. Both brothers then sought monetary compensation under HRS Chapter 661B, but the Attorney General stated that a finding of "actual innocence" was required.The Schweitzers filed a "Joint Petition for Relief Pursuant to HRS Chapter 661B" in their criminal proceedings, seeking a finding of actual innocence. The Circuit Court instructed them to file a motion to compel HPD to produce the investigative materials. The court granted the motion and directed the Schweitzers to prepare a subpoena. HPD filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which the court denied, leading HPD to file a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the Circuit Court had no discretion to act on the civil claims in the post-conviction proceeding and should have transferred the claims to a new civil case under HRPP Rule 40(c)(3). The court ordered the Circuit Court to quash the subpoena and transfer the Schweitzers' joint petition to a new civil proceeding, following the procedures prescribed by HRCP Rule 26 and HRS § 661B-2. The court clarified that Brady and UIPA do not apply to civil discovery and that there is no qualified law enforcement investigatory privilege in Hawai‘i. View "Hawai'i Police Department v. Kubota" on Justia Law

In 1991, an individual was convicted of multiple felonies related to a home invasion and rape, receiving a thirty-five-year prison sentence. In 2011, the conviction was vacated based on newly discovered DNA evidence that excluded the individual as the contributor of DNA found at the crime scene. The prosecution subsequently moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, which the court granted. In 2016, the individual filed a civil petition for compensation under Hawai‘i’s wrongful conviction compensation statute, HRS chapter 661B.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit held that the individual failed to allege an actionable claim because the order vacating the conviction did not explicitly state that he was “actually innocent.” The court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the individual did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case. It held that HRS § 661B-1 does not require the exact words “actually innocent” to be present in the vacatur order. Instead, the order must state facts supporting the petitioner’s actual innocence. The court found that the vacatur order, which was based on exculpatory DNA evidence, met this standard. Therefore, the individual presented an actionable claim for relief under HRS chapter 661B.The Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment to the State and remanded the case for a trial to determine whether the individual is actually innocent and entitled to compensation under the statute. The court emphasized that the trial should follow the procedures outlined in HRS § 661B-2 and HRS § 661B-3. View "Jardine v. State" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, four plaintiffs, Sonia Davis, Jessica Lau, Lauralee Riedell, and Adam Walton, challenged the actions of the County of Maui, the County of Maui Office of the Mayor, and other related defendants. The dispute arose from a sweep of a large encampment of houseless individuals in Maui County in September 2021. The plaintiffs had requested a contested case hearing before the sweep, which was ignored, and the sweep proceeded as planned, leading to the seizure of Davis and Lau's personal property.The plaintiffs asserted they were denied procedural due process under the state and federal constitutions when the county seized their personal property without proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. The County moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in continuing to store their belongings on County land. The circuit court granted the motion as to Riedell and Walton, who had not lost property during the sweep, but denied the motion as to Davis and Lau, who had.The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that plaintiffs possessed a property interest in their personal items protected by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. Therefore, the due process clause required a hearing before the County could seize the plaintiffs’ property. The circuit court properly granted the County’s motion to dismiss Riedell and Walton’s claims because they did not lose property during the sweep and properly denied the County’s motion to dismiss as to Davis and Lau, who did. View "Davis v. Bissen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Office of the Auditor lacked the authority to pierce the attorney-client privilege and obtain an audit's confidential communications and rejected the Office of the Auditor's jurisdiction and non-justiciability bars to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' (OHA) suit in this declaratory action.The OHA sued the Office of the Auditor after it was audited, seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Haw. Rev. Stat. 23-5 nor the Hawai'i State Constitution required OHA to disclose to the State Auditor privileged attorney-client communications protected from disclosure. The circuit court granted summary judgment for OHA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 23-5 did not require OHA to disclose to the State Auditor privileged attorney-client communications protected from disclosure pursuant to Haw. R. Evid. 503 and common-law principles. View "Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Kondo" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court held that the district court and intermediate court of appeals (ICA) erred in ruling that Defendant was not entitled to the requisite Miranda warnings when she was questioned by law enforcement officers, holding that "if a person is unable to leave a place of interrogation due to circumstances incident to medical treatment, determining whether the person is 'in custody' under a totality of circumstances requires an inquiry into whether the person was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and cause the officer to leave."State v. Ketchum, 34 P.3d 1006 (Haw. 2001), articulated that a person is "in custody" for constitutional purposes if the totality of the circumstances reflects that the point of arrest has arrived because probable cause to arrest has developed. State v. Sagapolutele-Silva, 511 P.3d 782 (Haw. 2002), overruled Ketchum's bright-line rule and said that the existence of probable cause was only a factor in determining whether someone was entitled to Miranda warnings under the totality of the circumstances. Here, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Sagapolutele-Silva's abrogation of the Ketchum rule and held that the Ketchum rule remained in effect. The Court then held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was in custody well before probable cause developed, and therefore, the lower courts erred by holding that Miranda warnings were not required. View "State v. Hewitt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendants' convictions for attempted murder in the second degree, kidnapping, and other crimes but remanded the case for a new extended term sentencing hearing and resentencing, holding that that extended term sentencing instructions and special interrogatories were prejudicially erroneous and misleading.The jury selection process in the underlying proceedings identified prospective jurors by a number, not name. On appeal, Defendants argued that the circuit court's jury selection method violated their constitutional right to a presumption of innocence and an impartial jury. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the convictions, holding that there was no constitutional violation. The Court, however, held that Defendants' life without the possibility of parole sentences for attempted murder could stand because the circuit court's extended term sentencing jury instructions and special interrogatories were prejudicially erroneous and misleading. View "State v. Lafoga" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the circuit court granting the State's motion for revocation of probation and resentencing Defendant to five years of imprisonment with credit for time served, holding that there was no error.After probation officers conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's home and recovered a firearm and ammunition, the circuit court revoked Defendant's probation. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition allowing warrantless searches by a probation officer for contraband. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant was prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition and because he had notice that the term "contraband" would include such items, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the special condition. View "State v. Talo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming order of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss indictment against him, the court's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the later order of restitution, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.In his motion to dismiss the indictment against him, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by before the grand jury by improperly eliciting testimony that he had invoked his right to remain silent. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and Defendant entered a no-contest plea to assault in the first degree. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' decisions, holding (1) the prosecutor violated Defendant's due process right to a fair and impartial grand jury hearing by eliciting testimony that Defendant invoked his right to remain silent; and (2) the circuit court erred by ordering Defendant to pay $1,461,444 in restitution. View "State v. Borge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ruled that the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) had jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant's postconviction appeal even though the appeal was not properly taken from a final order, holding that the appeal's procedural defects stemmed from ineffective assistance of counsel.Appellant pled no contest to murder in the second degree and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The ICA dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the appeal had not been taken from a final order. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's decision, holding (1) the order appealed from was not final, and the appeal did not give rise to appellate jurisdiction; and (2) this Court presumes prejudice to Appellant from his counsel's failure to take the procedural steps necessary to make the appeal that Appellant desired, and the appropriate remedy is consideration of the appeal on its merits. View "Suitt v. State" on Justia Law

In this petition for an extraordinary writ the Supreme Court held that when probable cause has been found after a preliminary hearing but the case is dismissed without prejudice due to a defect in the prosecution, Haw. R. Pen. P. 12(g) permits a court to hold a defendant in custody or continue bail for a specified time that is reasonable under the circumstances.After the court dismissed charges against Scott Deangelo, it ordered under Rule 12(g) that Deangelo remain in custody for ninety days while the State sought a grand jury indictment. Deangelo brought this challenge to Rule 12(g), arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-9(5), which requires an arrested person to be taken before a qualified magistrate for examination within forty-eight hours of arrest. The Supreme Court held that Rule 12(g) is constitutional and that the time specified must be reasonable in light of all of the circumstances. View "Deangelo v. Souza" on Justia Law