Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Richard Blaisdell is a Hawaiâi state inmate incarcerated in Arizona. He was convicted in 1994 on counts of sexual assault and terroristic threatening. In 2008, Blaisdell filed an emergency request for a restraining order against Arizona prison officials. He sought to enjoin the prison from destroying thirteen audio tapes he claimed contained evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that would exonerate him in his criminal case. The emergency motion was denied. Blaisdell appealed the decision to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), but the ICA affirmed the circuit courtâs decision. Blaisdell tried again two more times in 2009 to move the district court to hear his plea. Hearing nothing, Blaisdell filed a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to rule on one of his pending motions. The Supreme Court granted the writ, and the circuit court responded by dismissing Blaisdellâs motions. Blaisdell appealed again to the ICA, and again the ICA affirmed the circuit courtâs decision. Blaisdell appealed seeking Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court agreed with Blaisdellâs arguments to the extent that his claims for relief should not have been dismissed with prejudice in the lower courts. The Court held that the ICA erred in summarily affirming the circuit courtâs dismissal of Blaisdellâs complaint. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court for proceedings before a different judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Lopeti Lui Tuua was charged with assaulting a bouncer with a beer bottle. At trial, Tuua's half brother testified that he, rather than Tuua, assaulted the bouncer. During closing argument, the deputy prosecuting attorney commented that if the jury believed Tuua's half brother, no one would be convicted of assault. Tuua was found guilty and convicted of second degree assault, and sentenced to 90 days in prison and 5 years probation. Tuua appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), alleging in part, that the deputy prosecutor's comments at trial and in his closing statement were improper by commenting on the consequences of the jury's verdict and matters not in evidence. The ICA held the comments were not improper; Tuua brought this appeal. On review of the record, the Supreme Court vacated Tuua's judgment and conviction, and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial.