Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and operating a vehicle after license and privilege have been suspended or revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in permitting the State to amend the charge against to Defendant to allege the required mens rea for the offense. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA correctly concluded that the district court properly permitted the State to amend the charge; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims lacked merit. View "State v. Kam " on Justia Law

The family court adjudged Defendant guilty of violating an order of protection. Defendant was sentenced to two years’ probation. The start date of Defendant’s trial had been continued numerous times due to court congestion, and when Defendant appeared for a calendar call, Judge Jeannette Castagnetti was ill and could not proceed with trial, which led to another continuance. The day before trial began, Defendant made a motion to dismiss because trial was not commenced within six months of his arrest. The family court denied the motion, concluding that Judge Castagnetti’s one-month absence due to illness met the Haw. R. Pen. P. 48 criteria for excludable periods of time. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal, holding that the family court’s ruling that Judge Castagnetti’s illness constituted “good cause” was in error, and therefore, the ICA erred by concluding that the family court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 48. View "State v. Hayata " on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). Thereafter, Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant decided to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results on the basis that he did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to breath or blood testing. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search due to the coercion engendered by the implied consent form. View "State v. Parker " on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and subsequently taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The circuit court denied the motion. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s judgments, holding that the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search due to the coercion engendered by the implied consent form. Remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "State v. Moniz " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former Chief of the General Medical & Preventative Services Division at the Hawaii Department of Health, filed a tort complaint against the State and Senator Rosalyn Baker, alleging that Baker eliminated his position in retaliation for whistleblowing activities. Baker filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that she was immune from suit based on legislative immunity, that the claims were untimely, and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The circuit court granted in part and denied in part Baker’s motion to dismiss, finding, as relevant to this appeal, that Baker was not entitled to dismissal on the basis of legislative immunity. Baker appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s order and remanded to the ICA for determination of the appeal on the merits, holding that the ICA had jurisdiction to hear Baker’s appeal because the circuit court’s order was an immediately appealable collateral order. View "Greer v. Baker" on Justia Law

Lloyd Anastasi loaned $2.4 million to a third party in exchange for a mortgage on a property supposedly owned by that third party. Fidelity Insurance Company insured that the third party had good title, but the warranty deed purporting to give title to the third party was forged. Anastasi was sued by the owners of the property, and Fidelity accepted tender of the claim under a reservation of rights. Anastasi later filed a bad faith and breach of contract claim against Fidelity, alleging that the lawsuit was used by Fidelity to delay paying him under the title insurance policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) remanded in part and vacated in part. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the ICA’s judgment insofar as it remanded to the circuit court an order allowing Fidelity to withhold certain documents that Anastasi requested during discovery under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; and (2) vacated the ICA’s judgment insofar it it concluded that Anastasi failed to show any genuine issue of material fact that Fidelity acted in bad faith. View "Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and taken to the police station. After reading an implied consent form, Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test result. The district court denied the motion. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of OVUII. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the district court’s judgment, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Shimkus " on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of operating a vehicle after license and privilege have been suspended or revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial based on the district court’s misstatement of the standard of proof. On certiorari, Defendant argued that the ICA erred in concluding that the district court properly allowed the State to amend the charge against Defendant to allege the required mens era for the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA correctly determined that the district court properly permitted the State to amend the charge; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims lacked merit. View "State v. Abordo " on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting his blood alcohol test results into evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights because the implied consent form that apprised him of the criminal refusal penalties was contrary to his constitutional right to withdraw his consent to a warrantless search. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the result of Defendant’s blood test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress the blood test result. View "State v. Terasako " on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Petitioner appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a breath alcohol test that he took after he was arrested, arguing that he did not constitutionally consent to the breath test because the implied consent form conveyed a threat of imprisonment and significant punishment for his refusal to submit to the test. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the result of Petitioner’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress the breath test result. Remanded. View "State v. Cheek-Enriques " on Justia Law