Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

At issue in this case was a nonjudicial foreclosure on real property conducted pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 667-5. The circuit court entered final judgment in favor of the Mounts, the purchasers of the real property through the nonjudicial foreclosure sale, and U.S. Bank National Association. The final judgment was entered against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to section 667-5 is exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate and that U.S. Bank did not violate section 667-5(c)(1) by failing to provide former co-personal representative Sesha Lovelace with information she requested regarding the required funds to reinstate the loan (“reinstatement figures”). The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s final judgment, holding (1) a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to section 667-5 is not exempt from the time limits under Haw. Rev. Stat. 560:3-803 for presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate; and (2) the nonjudicial foreclosure was conducted in violation of section 667-5(c)(1) when U.S. Bank failed to provide Lovelace with loan reinstatement figures, and this failure rendered the nonjudicial foreclosure sale voidable at the Estate’s election unless the Mounts were innocent purchasers for value. Remanded. View "Mount v. Apao" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of robbery in the second degree, kidnapping as a class A felony, and kidnapping as a class B felony. The circuit court merged Count 1 - the robbery, a lesser grade class B felony - into Count 2 - one of the kidnappings, a higher grade class A felony. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and sentence as to Count 2 as a class A felony and remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction on Count 2 as a Class B felony and resentencing on Count 2, concluding that the circuit court erred in convicting Defendant of kidnapping as a class A felony on Count 2 because Defendant was entitled to the mitigating defense, which would have reduced the kidnapping to a class B felony. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, holding that the ICA erred in remanding the case for resentencing solely on the Count 2 kidnapping conviction because the kidnapping convictions merged into the robbery conviction. Remanded for the circuit court to reinstate Defendant’s conviction on Count 1 and to dismiss the convictions on Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 and to resentence Defendant on Count 1 only based on the merger of Counts 2 through 5 into Count 1. View "State v. Deguair " on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with manslaughter, and the case went to trial. After deliberating, the jurors sent a note to the court expressing concern for their safety. The circuit court subsequently declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity due to the jurors’ concerns about their safety. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing (1) the circuit court erred in finding manifest necessity and declaring a mistrial, and (2) further prosecution was prohibited on double jeopardy grounds. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the presumption of prejudice was not overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that manifest necessity existed for a mistrial; and (2) accordingly, the court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. View "State v. Gouveia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of methamphetamine trafficking in the second degree. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the judgment of conviction of the circuit court, holding (1) the State did not lay a proper foundation to introduce the results of a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR) test, and therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion by permitting a criminalist with the Honolulu Police Department to testify that the results of the test conclusively established that the substances police officers recovered from Defendant contained methamphetamine; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Subia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this class action suit individually and on behalf of employees (and their dependent-beneficiaries) who began working for the State or its political subdivisions before July 1, 2003 and who had accrued or will accrue a right to post-retirement health benefits as a retiree a retiree’s dependent. Plaintiffs alleged that the State, the City and County of Honolulu, and the Counties of Kaua’i, Maui, and Hawai’i impaired Plaintiffs’ accrued retirement health benefits in violation of Haw. Const. art. XVI, 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that the State and Counties violated their statutory rights under Haw. Rev. Stat. 87 by not providing retirees and their dependents with dental and medical benefits that were substantially equal to those provided to active workers and their dependents. After a lengthy procedural history, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs’ accrued retirement health benefits have been diminished or impaired in violation of article XVI, section 2. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Dannenberg v. State" on Justia Law