Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After the family court granted Geraldine Civtznovich-Dubie and George Dubie a divorce, George was killed. Geraldine then filed a motion to vacate the divorce decree or to set aside the corresponding property division, arguing that her marriage to George was void ab initio because George's previous marriage had not ended in a valid divorce. The family court denied Geraldine's motion, and Geraldine appealed. The intermediate court of appeals denied the motion, holding that Geraldine was estopped from challenging the validity of George's prior divorce and thereby was estopped from challenging the family court's subject matter jurisdiction to enter the divorce decree between Geraldine and George. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court did not err in affirming the family court's order but that its reasoning was erroneous in part. The Court concluded that jurisdiction cannot be created by estoppel, and therefore a party cannot be estopped from challenging the family court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Court then affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the divorce decree was not void under Hawaii Family Court Rule 60(b)(4). View "Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie" on Justia Law

Respondent Cedric Kikuta was convicted by a jury for assault in the third degree after a physical altercation with his stepson. Respondent appealed, arguing that the court erred in failing to instruct the jurors on the parental discipline defense and on whether the assault in the third degree occurred during the course of a scuffle, or affray, entered into by mutual consent. The court of appeals (1) held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the parental discipline defense and (2) chose not to address Respondent's argument regarding a mutual affray instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court regarding the parental discipline defense but vacated the judgment as to the lack of disposition regarding a mutual affray instruction. The Court held that (1) an instruction on the parental discipline defense is not per se precluded by the fact that substantial bodily injury occurred; (2) an instruction on the parental discipline defense must be given if there is some evidence to support each element of the defense; and (3) a mutual affray instruction must be given where there is some evidence the injury was inflicted during a fight entered into by mutual consent. View "State v. Kikuta" on Justia Law