Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' election contest complaint seeking nullification of the 2022 primary election results, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiffs Gary Cordery and a group of thirty registered voters brought this election contest complaint alleging inconsistencies, errors and mistakes in the voting process during the 2022 Primary Election. As relief, Plaintiffs requested nullification of the 2022 primary election results and directions that all qualified candidates advance to the General Election. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the remedies sought by Plaintiffs were not statutorily authorized, and therefore, Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim. View "Cordery v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants in this election contest brought by Plaintiff Richard Kim, holding that Josh Green received the highest number of votes and that his name shall be placed on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election.Plaintiff, one of seven Democratic Party candidates for the Office of Governor in the 2022 General Election, brought this complaint asserting that compromised vote counting occurred and that he should have been declared the winner of the primary election race held on August 13, 2022. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact related to Plaintiff's election contest. View "Kim v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding that the Supreme Court construed as an election complaint, holding that this Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought.Plaintiff, one of the two Primary Election Republican Party candidates in the Senate District 24 race, brought this action requesting that an order be issued halting the certification of the 2022 Primary Election so that a manual recount could be conducted and asserting, among other things, a lack of resolution on certain election integrity inquiries. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, holding that this Court lacked the authority under Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b) to grant Plaintiff the relief he sought. View "Lam v. State of Hawai'i Office of Elections " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiff's submission of a document entitled "Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP," which was filed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.In the submitted document, Plaintiff Daniel B. Decker IV argued that Defendant, the State of Hawai'i Office of Elections, failed properly to apply the qualification process upon the Hawaii Republican Party for the year 2022 primary election. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Decker v. Hawai'i Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original proceeding brought upon Plaintiffs' submission of a document entitled "Election Complaint; Motion for Preliminary Injunction Rule 65 HRCP," which was filed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.In their document that was filed as an election contest complaint Plaintiffs asserted that the Hawai'i Republican Party should have been disqualified as an active party and requesting that the Hawai'i Republican Party name be barred from appearing on the 2022 general election ballot. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over their complaint or the relief they sought. View "Dicks v. State of Haw. Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant but reversed with regard to the issue of Defendant's ability to pay a crime victim compensation (CVC) fee under Haw. Rev. Stat. 706-605(6) and 351-62.6, holding that Defendant's inability to pay the CVC fee mandated waiver of the fee.Defendant was convicted of various drug, theft, fraud, and property crimes. In addition to a five-year term of incarceration, the circuit court ordered Defendant to pay a CVC fee and a drug demand reduction (DDR) assessment under Haw. Rev. Stat. 706-650. Defendant appealed, arguing that both the CVC fee and the DDR assessment constituted unconstitutional taxes. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment as to its imposition of the CVC and affirmed in all other respects, holding (1) the circuit court erroneously imposed the CVC fee upon Defendant because he was unable to pay the fee; and (2) the CVC fee and DDR assessment were not unconstitutional taxes. View "State v. Yamashita" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming Defendant's kidnapping conviction, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury in accordance with State v. Sheffield, 456 P.3d 122 (Haw. 2020), and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping as a class A felony and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The ICA affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court plainly erred in failing to give the jury a Sheffield instruction in this case. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to so instruct the jury, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Ishimine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the circuit court's order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint challenging the presence of police officers from the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) and Maui County Police Department (MPD) within the County of Hawai'i as a violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 52D-5, holding that section 52D-5 does not provide for a private right of action.Plaintiff and a group of people assembled at Pu'u Huluhulu near the access road of Mauna Kea's summit after police officers block public access to the summit to express opposition to the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). Police officers from the HPD and MPD were assisting the Hawaiʻi County Police Department (HCPD) at the scene. Plaintiff later brought this complaint challenging the presence and legal authority of the police officers from HPD and MPD within the County, alleging that the Chiefs of Police violated section 52D-5. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, concluding that there was no private right of action pursuant to section 52D-5. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint. View "Flores v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that when an officer administers a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) to a person suspected of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, the officer is conducting an interrogation under the Hawai'i Constitution by asking "medical rule-out questions."Medical rule-out questions rule out other reasons besides intoxication for poor performance on the SFST. Defendant was asked seven medical rule-out questions while she was in police custody and before she was advised of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). After Defendant was charged with OVUII she filed a motion to suppress, arguing that she was subjected to interrogation when the officer asked if she would like to participate in the SFST. The district court granted the motion. The ICA ruled that the district court erred by suppressing Defendant's response to whether she would participate in the SFST but that that the medical rule-out questions constituted interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ICA did not err in concluding that Defendant's answers to the medical rule-out questions must be suppressed and that the other challenged evidence was admissible. View "State v. Skapinok" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacating in part the district court's conclusion that Defendant's performance on the standardized field sobriety test (SFST) was inadmissible fruit of the poisonous tree, holding that Defendant's performance on the SFST was admissible despite the absence of Miranda warnings preceding the test.Defendant was subject to custodial interrogation during a roadside investigation for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. At issue was whether the evidence gathered after that illegality, including his performance on the SFST was testimonial of fruit of the poisonous tree. The Supreme Court affirmed the admission of Defendant's performance on the SFST, holding that the police did not exploit the illegal interrogation because the interrogation did not lead to the discovery of the SFST evidence. View "State v. Manion" on Justia Law