Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of attempted murder in the second degree arising from the stabbing of Defendant's friend, holding that the jury's discovery of "stains" during an improper examination of Defendant's clothing to search for evidence of blood during deliberations was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.During deliberations, the jurors requested scissors to cut open the packaging containing Defendant's clothing, and three of the jurors examined the clothing for blood. The jurors found small spots on the inside of the pants and determined that the spots must be blood. The stains had not been introduced as evidence during trial. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the jurors' discovery of the stains constituted an outside influence that may have tainted the jury's impartiality, and the jury's exposure to the stains was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Pitts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that the deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) improperly referenced a pathologist's testimony as a defense expert in two of the most well-publicized murder trials in Hawai'i within the last decade, which affected Defendant's substantial right to a fair trial.Defendant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years of incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenged the DPA's cross-examination of James Navin, N.D., who had testified in the murder trials involving Kirk Lankford and Matthew Higa, and closing arguments about that testimony. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment on appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the DPA committed misconduct in referencing Navin's testimony, and the error deprived Defendant of her right to a fair trial. View "State v. Udo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court modifying and affirming the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Director of the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting approving an application for a Waikiki Special District (WSD) permit for PACREP to develop the second phase of a condo-hotel at 2139 Kuhio Avenue, holding that, under the circumstances, the due process rights of Local 5, a union representing hotel and restaurant employees, were violated.In appealing the permit, Local 5 argued that the Director abused his discretion by approving the permit without certain restrictive covenant conditions. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, when the Director removed certain conditions from a WSD permit for the first phase of the condo-hotel project, conditions he knew Local 5 had advocated for, Local 5 should have had an opportunity challenge the removal of those conditions from the permit. Because Local 5 did not receive notice that the Director had removed these conditions, Local 5's due process rights were violated. View "Unite Here! Local 5 v. Department of Planning & Permitting/Zoning Board of Appeals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) reversing the judgment of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence gathered from a search of Defendant's residence, holding that the ICA erred in not accepting the circuit court's findings of fact and in concluding that the particularity requirement was satisfied.As the basis for his motion to suppress Defendant argued that the search warrant did not state with specificity the subunit of the multiple-occupancy building he resided in. The circuit court concluded that the search warrant did not describe Defendant's subunit with particularity and that the search violated Defendant's constitutional rights. The ICA reversed, holding that there residence was not a multiple-occupancy building. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the warrant was invalid because it did not particularly describe Defendant's unit; and (2) the search violated Defendant's constitutional rights. View "State v. Rodrigues" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment on appeal of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) to the extent that it affirmed the circuit court's order of resentencing and revocation of probation, holding that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the order of resentencing and revocation of probation.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to probation. Defendant later left Hawai'i to visit his father while in Louisiana. In Louisiana, Defendant was arrested for an outstanding warrant from a previous sexual assault in Arkansas. After Defendant failed to report to his probation officer the State filed a motion for revocation of probation. The circuit court found that Defendant inexcusably violated a substantial condition of probation by failing to report to his probation officer and resentenced Defendant. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in using Defendant's argument that he did not inexcusably violate the terms of his probation as a basis for imposing a harsher sentence in contravention of the rule adopted by the Supreme Court in Stat v. Kamano, 82 P.3d 401 (2003). View "State v. Fleetwood " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing John Doe's appeal from a ruling of the Department of the Attorney General (AG), holding that the record did not support the AG's ruling.Doe, a registered sex offender in the State of Washington, requested a declaratory ruling as to whether he was required to register as a sex offender in Hawai'i before visiting Hawai'i with his family for more than ten days. The AG issued a ruling that Doe was required to register in Hawai'i. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the record did not support the AG's decision. View "Doe v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) on appeal affirming the family court's termination of Father's parental rights, holding that the ICA erred in substituting a provision of the family court statutes, Haw. Rev. Stat. 571-61(b)(1)(E), for a provision of the Child Protective Act (CPA) as the basis for terminating Father's parental rights.The family court terminated Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 587A-33, a provision of the CPA. On appeal, the ICA held that the family court's termination of Father's parental rights was not permitted by the plain language of the CPA provision. However, the ICA affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights under the family court provision. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment, holding that where the CPA provision contained a requirement not present in the family court provision the ICA erred by invoking the family court provision to affirm the family court's termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Interest of R Children" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) and the order of the family court in this case concerning the proper consideration and weight of a hānai relationship in the context of a child welfare proceeding, holding that a hānai relative who is a child's resource caregiver has an interest in that child's custody sufficient to allow intervention in such proceedings under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Hawai'i Family Court Rules.Child lived with Father and his girlfriend, KL. After Father moved out, Child remained in the same home as KL. The family court later changed Child's placement to her great aunt and uncle's home in New Hampshire. At the hearing changing Child's placement, KL sought to have to have interest in the proceeding recognized. The family court denied the request. The ICA ruled that because KL had filed a petition to adopt Child she had a sufficient interest in Child's custody to intervene. KL sought further review, arguing that her status as a hānai relative conferred a substantive interest in Child's placement. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the family court erred by not allowing KL to intervene in the placement hearing based in part on her status as Child's hānai parent. View "In re AB" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeal (ICA) and the circuit court's judgment of conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of Haw. R. Pen. P. (HRPP) 48(c)(5).On the day of his scheduled jury trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss indictment for violation of HRPP Rule 48, asserting the violation based on the passage of 181 unexcludable days, a difference of only one day from the requirement that trial commence within 180 days. The circuit court denied the motion. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of manslaughter. The ICA affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that a nearly three-month delay was not excludable because he was not "unavailable" for purposes of Rule 48. The Supreme Court set aside Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the time period a defendant continues to be held in State custody in a mainland prison after his conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered is not excludable under Rule 48(c)(5); and (2) therefore, the time Defendant spent in Arizona in State custody was not excludable under Rule 48(c)(5), and the circuit court erred in denying the Rule 48 motion. View "State v. Hernane" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence set forth in the circuit court judgment and affirmed by the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) and otherwise affirmed the lower courts' judgments, holding that the State violated Defendant's due process rights.Defendant was convicted of four offenses. The ICA vacated three of the convictions. On remand, the State was given the option of either retrying Defendant on the charges underlying three convictions vacated by the appellate court or dismissing two of those charges and having the trial court reinstate the conviction on the remaining charge. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the three counts, arguing that Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48 (b)(3) had been violated. The circuit court denied the motion. The State failed to disclose which two of the three charges would be dismissed before Defendant exercised the right of allocution at sentencing. Defendant was subsequently resentenced. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding ((1) the ICA correctly concluded that the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of Rule 48(b)(3); but (2) Defendant's right of allocution was violated by the court’s failure to require timely disclosure of the offense for which Defendant would be sentenced. View "State v. Carlton" on Justia Law