Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this summary disposition order, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest but reversed Defendant’s conviction for burglary in the second degree. The court held that the intermediate court of appeals erred in affirming the circuit court’s denial of Defendant’s motion of acquittal as to the burglary count. Specifically, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. King, 386 P.3d 886 (2016), Defendant’s contravention of a written trespass warning did not constitute an unlawful entry for the purposes of burglary in the second degree. Accordingly, a reasonable juror could not have concluded, based on the evidence, that Defendant was guilty of burglary in the second degree. View "State v. Collins " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of methamphetamine trafficking in the first degree and two counts of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia. The circuit court imposed a mandatory minimum term of thirteen years and four months on Defendant’s twenty-year sentence on the methamphetamine trafficking charge because Defendant had a prior conviction for methamphetamine trafficking. The Supreme Court remanded Defendant’s case to the circuit court for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred in construing Defendant’s prior conviction as an element of the offense, thus unnecessarily subjecting Defendant to potential prejudice due to the jurors learning of his prior felony conviction. View "State v. Wagner" on Justia Law

John Hasircoglu was an employee of a subcontractor to FOPCO, Inc., the general contractor on a tunnel construction project on Molokai. In response to a request by the State, FOPCO identified Donald Clark and Michael Estes, neither of whom were FOPCO employees, as “project superintendent and key personnel.” The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of FOPCO on all claims. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that Estes and Clark were not agents of FOPCO, and therefore, FOPCO could not be held vicariously liable for their alleged negligence. The Supreme Court vacated in part and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was an agency relationship between FOPCO and Estes and/or Clark based on actual express or implied authority; and (2) summary judgment was proper as to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. View "Hasircoglu v. FOPCO, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Before he decided whether to submit to alcohol concentration testing, Defendant was affirmatively advised that he was not entitled to an attorney before submitting to any such tests. Defendant was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and refusal to submit to a breath, blood, and/or urine test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the evidence was obtained in violation of his right to consult with counsel as provided by Haw. Rev. Stat. 803-9. The district court denied the motion to suppress. After a trial, Defendant was convicted of OVUII and the refusal offense. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the advisory given in this case is inconsistent with Hawaii’s statutory right to access counsel; but (2) under the circumstances of this case, Defendant’s refusal to submit to testing was not subject to suppression. View "State v. Scalera" on Justia Law

RT Import Inc. filed a complaint against Jesus and Mila Torres seeking damages for merchandise allegedly misdelivered by WFS to the Torreses, which was then converted by the Torreses. RT Import and the Torreses agreed to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Torreses committed the intentional tort of conversion and awarded RT Import damages. The arbitrator also found that the Torreses were responsible for arbitration fees and costs. The circuit court granted RT Import’s motion to confirm the final award and awarded RT Import $106,711.62 in damages and $8,355.49 for arbitration attorney’s fees and costs. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court’s confirmation of the final arbitration award and judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment as to $4,738.74 of the $8,355.49 for RT’s arbitration attorney’s fees and costs and otherwise affirmed, holding that the circuit court erred by including in the judgment confirming the arbitration award $4,738.74 directly billed by RT Import to the Torreses, which was not a part of the final award. Remanded. View "RT Import, Inc. v. Torres" on Justia Law

Child was born to Mother and Father. Mother filed a petition for paternity. Father and Mother entered into a stipulated agreement regarding custody, visitation, and child support. In 2011, Mother and Father reduced Father’s monthly child support obligation. In 2013, Father filed a motion for relief requesting that the family court recalculate his child support obligation based on the parties’ current incomes. The trial court entered an order determining Father’s child support to be the same amount agreed to by the parties in the 2011 agreement and determining that Father owed Mother $64,490 in past due child support. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed the child support ruling. Father appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the family court erred in determining his monthly payment without utilizing the Hawaii Child Support Guidelines. The Supreme Court vacated in part the lower courts, holding (1) a responsible or custodial parent for whom support has previously been ordered is entitled to a review of a child support order not more than once every three years without having to show a change in circumstances; and (2) the family court is required to use the Hawaii Child Support Guidelines when it reviews the merits of a request for adjustment of a monthly support obligation. View "P.O. v. J.S." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of Counts VI and VIII in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 709-906(1) and (5). The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed, ruling (1) regarding Count VI, the self-defense and defense of others jury instructions were not plainly erroneous; and (2) regarding Count VIII, the circuit court properly refused the time-specific elements instruction and did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the ICA’s judgment as to Count VI, holding that the circuit court properly gave the relevant jury instructions; but (2) vacated the lower courts’ judgment as to Count VIII, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as the trial testimony of the complaining witness created a material time variance from the State’s response to the notice of alibi, thus undermining the defense that Defendant prepared. View "State v. Yang " on Justia Law

Lanric Hyland appealed from a county clerk decision to the local board of registration for the County of Hawaii. The local board determined that Hyland mailed his appeal within ten days of service of the county clerk’s decision based in part on its determination that October 13 was a holiday, thus tolling his appeal deadline for that day. Nevertheless, the board ruled that his appeal was untimely because the board did not receive his appeal until after the deadline, and therefore, it was without jurisdiction to review the appeal. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, but also determined that Hyland did not mail his letter within the ten-day filing period because the second Monday in October - recognized by the federal government as Columbus Day - is not a Hawaii state holiday. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions below, holding (1) the board had jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hyland’s appeal because the appeal letter was mailed within ten days of service of the county clerk decision; and (2) the second Monday in October is a holiday for purposes of the computation of time as to when an act is to be done under Haw. Rev. Stat. 1-29. Remanded. View "Hyland v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

This case arose from a divorce proceeding between Husband and Wife. At issue in this appeal was Husband’s cross-appeal, in which he argued that the family court erred in failing to award him any Category 3 credit for gifts and inheritance, denying his request for Haw. R. Civ. P. 68 attorney’s fees, and awarding Wife attorney’s fees and costs. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated in part and affirmed in part, concluding (1) the family court erred in denying Husband any Category 3 credit; (2) as to the award of attorney’s fees under Hawaii Family Court Rules Rule 68, the matter must be remanded for further proceedings; and (3) the family court properly awarded attorney’s fees to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the ICA correctly ruled that the issue of Category 3 credits must be remanded, but, upon remand, the issue must be addressed pursuant to the supplemental instructions in this opinion; and (2) the ICA erred in vacating the family court’s denial of Husband’s Rule 68 motion, as Rule 68 is inapplicable in divorce cases. Remanded. View "Brutsch v. Brutsch" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct. The district court sentenced Defendant to six months of probation, seventy-five hours of community service, and $105 in fees and assessments. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the evidence failed to prove that she engaged in “tumultuous behavior” within the meaning of the disorderly conduct statute. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction, concluding that the prosecution presented substantial evidence to show that Defendant engaged in tumultuous behavior. The Supreme Court reversed the ICA’s judgment and the district court’s order, holding that the State did not present substantial evidence that Defendant’s conduct was “tumultuous” within the meaning of the disorderly conduct statute, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. View "State v. Teale" on Justia Law