Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with committing the offense of abuse of family or household members (AFHM). Defense counsel moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) the family circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Defendant was arraigned in the family circuit court rather than district court in violation of Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure 10(a); and (2) the complaint was insufficient for failure to define "physical abuse" or "family or household member." The family circuit court denied the motion. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) upheld the judgment of the family circuit court, holding (1) any impropriety on the part of the family circuit court with respect to the arraignment was harmless error; and (2) the charge was sufficient. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and the family court's judgment of conviction and sentence and remanded to the family circuit court to dismiss the case without prejudice, holding (1) because the family circuit court failed to arraign Petitioner in accordance with Rule 10(a), the case must be dismissed without prejudice; and (2) the charge was sufficient inasmuch as it "fully defined the offense in unmistakable terms readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding." View "State v. Basnet" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a contract with Complainant for the purpose of remodeling part of Complainant's house. Complainant later discovered Defendant was not a licensed contractor, contrary to Defendant's representations to Complainant. Before the remodeling was completed, Complainant fired Defendant due to a dispute regarding the purchasing of materials. After an investigation, Defendant was charged with theft in the first degree and unlicensed activity. Defendant moved to dismiss the theft charge, which the circuit court denied. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed, determining that there was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to indict Defendant for first-degree theft given his misrepresentation to Complainant that he was an unlicensed contractor, which thereby induced Complainant to enter into a contract and pay Defendant $95,930 before ultimately firing him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the circuit court and the ICA, holding that the evidence in this case did not suffice to establish probable cause that Defendant committed theft of property exceeding $20,000 in value because the State did not provide the grand jury with any specific amount of property of which Complainant was allegedly unlawfully deprived. Remanded with instructions to dismiss the charge of theft in the first degree. View "State v. Atwood" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two drug-related offenses. Defendant was then admitted into a drug court program but subsequently self-terminated from the program. The circuit court found Defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively for a total of fifteen years due to Defendant's history of "extensive criminality." The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment; (2) the circuit court properly considered Defendant's pre-sentence investigation report as a basis for the imposition of Defendant's sentence; and (3) Defendant voluntarily and intelligently self-terminated from the drug court program and waived his right to a termination hearing. View "State v. Kong" on Justia Law

Defendant, a medical marijuana patient, was arrested for possessing medical marijuana while passing through airport security at Kona International Airport. Defendant was later convicted of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded the case to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal, holding (1) Defendant presented sufficient evidence to trigger a medical marijuana affirmative defense in a stipulated fact trial, in which the parties stipulated that Defendant possessed a valid medical marijuana certificate and that the marijuana he possessed was medical marijuana; and (2) the conflict between a statute that allows medical use of marijuana, including transportation of such marijuana, and another statute that prohibits transportation of medical marijuana through any place open to the public, created an irreconcilable conflict that must be resolved in favor of Defendant.View "State v. Woodhall" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the offense of kidnapping. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, holding that any error in failing to instruct the jury as to first degree unlawful imprisonment was harmless because the jury convicted Defendant of the greater charged offense and, thus, would not have reached the absent lesser offense. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court should have given a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree; and (2) the failure to give the instruction was not harmless, overruling State v. Haanio to the extent that Haanio would hold such error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "Flores v. State " on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to a five-year term of probation for the offenses of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree and prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia. The probationary sentence was granted to Petitioner as a first time drug offender pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 706-622.5. The sentence contained several terms and conditions. After the conclusion of Petitioner's probationary period, Petitioner filed a motion for an order of expungement. The circuit court concluded that Petitioner did not qualify for expungement of her felony convictions because, in committing other crimes during her probationary period, she had violated a term of her probation. The Supreme Court vacated the order denying Petitioner's motion, holding (1) for the purposes of expungement of a drug conviction, the requirement that a defendant sentenced to probation under section 706.622.5 has "complied with other terms and conditions" is satisfied if the defendant has completed her probationary term and has been discharged from probation; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, because Petitioner had completed her probation term, she had, in effect, complied with the terms and conditions of probation for purposes of expungement under section 706-622.5. Remanded for entry of an order granting Petitioner's motion.View "State v. Pali" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 261E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the charge against him was jurisdictionally defective because it did not allege the requisite mens rea. The ICA denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded to the trial court to enter an order dismissing the case without prejudice, holding the charge of OVUII in this case was insufficient because (1) the State failed to allege the requisite states of mind of intentional, knowing, or reckless in the charge, and (2) the charge failed to allege an essential fact constituting the offense charged. View "State v. Maharaji" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of robbery in the second degree, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used "force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance." Appellant, who took a handbag out of Nordstrom without paying for it, argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove he had used force with the intent to overcome two of the store's loss prevention officers' physical resistance or physical power of resistance." In this case, no specific unanimity instruction was given to the jury informing them that they were required to agree unanimously as to the identity of the person against whom Appellant used force. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's failure to give a specific unanimity instruction constituted plain error, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Getz" on Justia Law

Petitioner posted bond for Defendant after Defendant was charged with several crimes. When Defendant failed to appear for trial, a judgment and order of forfeiture of bail bond was filed. Petitioner's motion was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed two successive motions for relief from forfeiture of bail bond pursuant to Haw. R. Civ. P. 7 and 60(b). The circuit court denied the motions. Petitioner appealed the denial of his third motion, which was dismissed as untimely. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Hawaii Rules of Civil procedure (HRCP) do not apply in bond forfeiture proceedings; and (2) Haw. Rev. Stat. 804-51 establishes the exclusive means to seek relief from a judgment of forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the HRCP do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings; (2) the statement in Haw. Rev. Stat. 804-14 that a surety may recover its bond at any time by surrendering the defendant is qualified by section 804-51, which provides that once the court enters a judgment of forfeiture, a surety is entitled to relief only by filing a motion within thirty days demonstrating good cause for setting the judgment of forfeiture aside; and (3) Petitioner's last motion was therefore untimely. View "State v. Vaimili" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, terroristic threatening in the second degree, and terroristic threatening in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his request for the written transcripts or the DVD video recordings of his codefendant's trial. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments, holding that Defendant demonstrated that the requested transcripts or DVD video recordings were necessary for an effective defense where the charges against Defendant and his codefendant arose from the same incident and involved identical facts, and the same key witness testified against Defendant and his codefendant at their respective trials. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law