Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was placed under arrest for theft in the fourth degree. At the time of the arrest, Defendant was issued a trespass warning. Defendant subsequently violated the trespass warning. That violation was used as the underlying basis for Defendant’s ensuing charge of burglary in the second degree. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the State’s reliance on the written trespass warning failed to establish probable cause that he violated the second-degree burglary statute. The circuit court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The intermediate court of appeals reversed, concluding that there was probable cause to support the charge of burglary in the second degree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the violation of a trespass warning may not be used as an underlying basis for a charge of second-degree burglary; and (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that there was no probable cause to support the felony information. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The State filed an application for judicial determination of probable cause for the warrantless arrest and extended restraint of Ethan Ferguson (the Ferguson Probable Cause Application, or FPCA). The FPCA, a publicly accessible document, contained personal information in contravention of Rule 9 of the Hawaii Court Records Rules. The State subsequently requested that the court seal the FPCA to protect the wrongly included personal information. Judge Takase granted the motion. One week later, the State filed a redacted version of the FPCA, which omitted the personal information at issue. Oahu Publications Inc. subsequently filed a petition seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting Judge Takase from enforcing her order sealing the FPCA and a writ of mandamus ordering the judge to make public the sealed FPCA. This case required the Supreme Court to consider the procedures that courts should follow when a personal information has been included in a publicly accessible document that was filed in violation of Rule 9. The Supreme Court held (1) the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine applied in this case; and (2) because the relief Oahu Publications requested had either already been provided or was unnecessary, the requested relief was not warranted. View "Oahu Publications, Inc. v. Takase" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by complaint with one count of unauthorized possession of confidential personal information (UPCPI). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The circuit court granted the motion in part. The intermediate court of appeals vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the UPCPI statutes are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. In a separate dismissal motion, Defendant alleged that the complaint failed to provide him fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. The circuit court dismissed the case, concluding (1) the complaint was fatally defective because it denied Defendant of his right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and (2) the UPCPI statutes were not void for vagueness but were overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the complaint was legally insufficient; (2) the UPCPI statutes are not facially overbroad; and (3) portions of the UPCPI statutes are unconstitutionally vague, but they are severable from the constitutional parts of the statutes. View "State v. Pacquing" on Justia Law

This case arose out of dispute between the Association of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha, its former property managers, and its former commercial tenants. The AOAO installed an electricity submetering system and submitted readings of each unit’s electricity submeter to the managing agent, who would bill each owner for electricity. For certain years, some commercial tenants were never billed for electricity, and some were erroneously billed for a portion of those electricity costs. The AOAO sued its former property managers for, inter alia, breach of contract for the billing errors. The AOAO also sued the commercial tenants to recover the unbilled or erroneously billed electricity costs. The circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that all claims were barred under the doctrine of laches. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the defense of laches applies only to equitable claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that laches is a defense to legal and equitable claims alike. View "Association of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha v. Certified Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with burglary in the second degree. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to compel discovery requesting access to the property where he allegedly committed the criminal offense. The circuit court denied the motion to compel. After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to compel discovery and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was wrongly denied access to the crime scene, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Tetu" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of quo warrant challenging Representative Calvin K.Y. Say’s authority to hold office as representative of the Twentieth District of Hawaii. The circuit court granted Say’s motion to dismiss the petition for nonjusticiability. Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the law of the case doctrine does not foreclose Say’s arguments; (2) the legitimacy of Say’s qualifications to hold office presents a nonjusticiable political question; (3) the Attorney General was not prohibited from representing the House of Representatives against Petitioners; and (4) the grant of permissive intervention to the House of Representatives was proper. View "Hussey v. Say" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of theft in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft in the second degree. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s judgment of conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding (1) there was a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting Defendant of theft in the first degree and convicting him of theft in the second degree; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft in the second degree, and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Faamama" on Justia Law

Hawaii News Now (HNN) submitted an application for extended coverage for the criminal case, State v. Nilsawit, which involved the controversy regarding the Honolulu Police Department’s then-practice of allowing undercover police officers to engage in sexual conduct with people selling sexual services during sting operations. The district court prohibited HNN from televising or publishing the faces or likenesses of three officers involved in the case. HNN filed a motion for leave to appeal. The district court denied HNN’s motion, concluding that HNN exceeded the five-day period within within which a motion for review of an order regarding coverage must be filed under the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (RSCH) Rule 5.1(f)(8). HNN appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed HNN’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the request for extended coverage originates from a member of the media, review of a district court’s decision regarding that request is limited to the procedure set forth in RSCH Rule 5.1(f)(8); and (2) further, there is no independent statutory authority that would allow the ICA to review the district court’s decision. View "State v. Nilsawit" on Justia Law

A.A. and B.B. were in a committed relationship when Child was born. B.B. was the biological grandfather and legal adoptive father of Child. A.A. and B.B. co-parented Child and shared physical custody of her even after their separation as a couple. A.A. later filed a petition for joint custody of Child pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 571-46(a)(2), alleging that he had de facto joint custody of Child. After a hearing, the family court denied A.A.’s petition for joint custody, concluding that A.A. did not have standing as Child’s “psychological father” because the parties were not married. The Supreme Court vacated the family court’s decision, holding (1) the family court misinterpreted and misapplied Hawaii’s statutory de facto custody provision; and (2) B.B. failed to establish that the application of section 571-46(a)(2) to this case would infringe on his fundamental liberty interests or otherwise violate his constitutional right to privacy. Remanded. View "A.A. v. B.B" on Justia Law

William Newcomb and Stephen McPeek had lived together in a committed relationship for two years when they decided to adopt and raise a child. Only McPeek legally adopted the child, but the parties co-parented the child and shared physical custody of her, even after their separation. Newcomb later filed a petition for joint custody, alleging that he had de facto joint custody of the child. The family court denied Newcomb’s petition for joint custody. The Supreme Court vacated the family court’s decision, holding (1) the court misinterpreted and misapplied Hawaii’s statutory de facto custody provision; and (2) McPeek failed to establish that the application of the de facto custody provision to this case would infringe on his fundamental liberty interests or otherwise violate his constitutional right to privacy. Remanded. View "Newcomb v. McPeek" on Justia Law