Hawaii Appellate Opinions

STATE v. LO

October 30, 2007 (No. 28775)

Opinion [pdf]

Per Curiam.  In this original proceeding, petitioner State of Hawai'i (the prosecution) petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing respondent the Honorable David W. Lo, judge of the District Court of the First Circuit (the respondent judge), to vacate a pretrial order granting respondent Jack Miller's [hereinafter, defendant Miller] motion to compel discovery in State v. Miller, Case No. 1DTC-07-017133.  The prosecution contends that the respondent judge exceeded his lawful authority under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16(d) (200&), quoted infra, by compelling the prosecution to disclose to defendant Miller the calibration distances and calibration locations for the laser unit used to cite defendant Miller for excessive speeding, in violation of Hawai'i revised Statutes (HRS)  § 291C-105(a)(1) (Supp. 2006), quoted infra.

Based on the following, we hold that, because the calibration information falls within the ambit of HRPP rule 16(d), the respondent judge did not exceed his lawful authority and that, therefore, the prosecution is not entitled to mandamus relief.

STATE v. MURRAY

October 29, 2007 (No. 27549)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant James Murray (Petitioner) filed an application for writ of certiorari on April 27, 2007, requesting that this court review the February 6, 2007 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeal (the ICA), issued pursuant to its January 19, 2007 memorandum opinion, affirming the September 13, 2005 judgment of the family court of the second circuit (the court), convicting Petitioner of  Abuse of A Family Member or Household Member as a class C felony, HRS §§ 709-906(1) and (7) (Supp. 2006).

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (Respondent) did not file a memorandum in opposition.

. . . .

Based on the foregoing, the ICA's February 6, 2007 judgment is reversed, the court's September 13, 2005 judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the court for a new trial.  [footnotes omitted]

Dissenting opinion by Nakayama, J. [pdf]

STATE v. POND

October 11, 2007 (No. 27847)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WATANABE, PRESIDING J.

Following an incident that occurred on December 12, 2005 (the December 2005 incident), Defendant-Appellant Kevin Pond (Pond or Mr. Pond) was charged with, and convicted and sentenced for, Abuse of Family or Household Member in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906 (Supp. 2004). . .

. . . .

We affirm. [footnotes omitted]

STATE v. FIELDS

Oct. 10, 2007 (No. 25455)

Opinion [pdf]

AMENDED OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.

On June 30, 2005, defendant-appellant-petitioner Reginald Fields ("Fields") filed an application for writ of certiorari to review the published decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") in State v. Fields, No. 25455 ("the ICA's opinion"), affirming the October 11, 2002 judgment of the family court of the fifth circuit, convicting Fields of, and sentencing him for, the offense of abuse of a family or household member, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 709-906(1).

The parties do not dispute that Fields was convicted on the strength of hearsay.  In affirming the conviction, the ICA held that the admission of extrajudicial statements as substantive evidence of Fields' guilt did not violate Fields' constitutional right of confrontation.  During the pendency of Fields' appeal before the ICA, the United States Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as case that substantially modifies the standard for admitting hearsay evidence consistent with the confrontation clauses of the United States and Hawai'i Constitutions.  We granted certiorari to consider whether the admission of the inculpatory hearsay in the present case violated Crawford.  Subsequently, while the matter was pending before this court, the United States Supreme Court revisited Crawford in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006), clarifying the distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay.  Considering Fields' points of error in light of Crawford and Davis, we now affirm his conviction. [footnotes omitted]

Amended dissenting opinion by Acoba, J. [pdf].

RANCHES v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

Oct. 5, 2007 (No. 27846)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.

. . . .

Petitioners present the following questions for this court's decision: "(1) [whether] the definition of what constitutes a subsequent remedial measure under Hawai'i law [should be clarified]; and (2) whether actions take by [Respondent] in preparation to refinish a floor prior to a slip and fall incident can be defined as subsequent remedial measures." (Emphasis in original.)

PORTER v. HU

Oct. 4, 2007 (No. 26438, consolidated with No. 26602)

Opinion [pdf]

STATE v. MAUGAOTEGA

Oct. 1, 2007 (No. 26657)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J.

On February 20, 2007, on petition for a writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this court in State v. Maugaotega, 107 Hawai‘i 399, 114 P.3d 905 (2005) (Maugaotega I), in which this court affirmed the defendant-appellant Miti Maugaotega, Jr.'s extended terms of imprisonment, and ordered that we reconsider Maugaotega's appeal in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). Maugaotega v. Hawai‘i, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1210 (2007).

For the reasons discussed infra, we vacate Maugaotega's original extended term sentences and remand to the circuit court for non-extended term sentencing. . . .

Concurring and dissenting Opinion by J. Acoba, with whom J. Duffy joins [pdf].