Hawaii Appellate Opinions

STATE OF HAWAII v. ESPINOSA

No. 29094 (April 30, 2009)

Opinion pdf

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WATANABE, J.

Defendant-Appellant Rollie Dumasig Espinosa (Espinosa) appeals from the judgment filed in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court) on March 5, 2008, convicting him of street solicitation of prostitution in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1207 (Supp. 2008) and sentencing him to serve thirty days in jail.

. . .

HRS § 712-1207 was enacted in 1998, after the Tookes decision and Act 204's amendment to HRS § 712-1200(1). We conclude that by including the phrase "in return for a fee" in HRS § 712-1207(2), the legislature intended to exclude a patron of a prostitute, such as Espinosa, from criminal liability under that statute. Therefore, we reverse the judgment filed in the district court on March 5, 2008.

Concurring Opinion by Reckenwald, C.J. pdf

STATE OF HAWAII v. WOODFALL

No 28838 (April 29, 2009)

Opinion pdf

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Michael Woodfall ("Woodfall") petitions this court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals' ("ICA's") November 18, 2008 judgment affirming the October 10, 2007 judgment of the first circuit court ("circuit court"), convicting Woodfall of the offenses of identity theft in the second degree, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 708-839.7 (Supp. 2006), forgery in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-852 (Supp. 2006), and attempted theft in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-500 (1993) and HRS § 708-831(1)(b) (Supp. 2006).  We accepted Woodfall's application for a writ of certiorari, and oral argument was held on March 19, 2008.

Woodfall asserts that the ICA gravely erred by affirming the circuit court's judgment of conviction, inasmuch as the HRS § 708-839.7 phrase "transmission of any personal information of another" prohibits the "transmission of any personal information" of an actual person, and he transmitted information associated with a fictitious person.

Because HRS § 708-839.7 is susceptible to two interpretations, we construe the statute under the rule of lenity and in favor of Woodfall.  Accordingly, we vacate the lower court's judgment and order and remand the case to the circuit court for re-sentencing. [footnotes omitted]

COUNTY OF HAWAII v. C & J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

No. 28822 (April 21, 2008)

Opinion pdf

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.

In County of Hawai'i v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. Partnership, 119 Hawai'i 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008), issued on December 24, 2008, this court held that Defendant-Appelant C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership (Appellant) "is entitled to seek statutory damages [from Plaintiff-Appellee County of Hawai'i (the County")] pursuant to [Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 101-27 (1993) because it prevailed in [Civil No. 00-1-181K (Condemnation 1)]," and "the property in question was not finally taken in Condemnation 1." Id. at 361, 364, 198 P.3d at 624, 627.  On January 20, 2009, Appellant filed its Request for Statutory Damages (the Request) and memorandum in support.  The County filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Appellant's Request for Statutory Damages on January 30, 2009 (Opposition). Third-Party Defendant-Appellee 1250 Oceanside Partners (Oceanside) joined the County's Opposition and also filed a separate memorandum in opposition to the Request on January 30, 2009.  On February 19, 2009, pursuant to this court's February 9, 2009 order, Appellant filed its Response to Objections re: Request for Statutory Damages (the Response). The County filed a reply to the Response on March 2, 2009 (Reply), in which Oceanside joined on March 2, 2009 (Joinder). On March 5, 2009, Appellant filed an Errata to Responses to Objections re: Request for Statutory Damages (Errata), purportedly to correct certain errors in the Request and the Response.  For the reasons stated herein, Appellant is awarded $25,370.55 in fees and $1,206.35 in costs. [footnote omitted]

STATE OF HAWAII v. DAWSON

No. 28406 (April 8, 2009)

Opinion pdf

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAMURA, J.

A computer check for warrants revealed an outstanding warrant for Defendant-Appellant Edward S. Dawson (Dawson). Upon encountering Dawson, a police officer detained Dawson for a few minutes to confirm that the physical paper warrant was still in the files of law enforcement. During this detention, the officer observed Dawson remove a glass pipe, commonly used to smoke crystal methamphetamine, from Dawson's pocket and place it in a nearby package. Once the outstanding warrant was confirmed,Dawson was arrested on the outstanding warrant and for possession of the pipe. We hold that Dawson's detention was lawful and that the trial court properly denied Dawson's motion to suppress the pipe, which was found to contain methamphetamine.

Dawson appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (Judgment) filed on January 17, 2007, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).  Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (State) charged Dawson by complaint with 1) promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, for possessing methamphetamine (Count I) and 2) possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia (Count II). The charges were based on the methamphetamine pipe observed by the officer while Dawson was detained and later recovered after Dawson's arrest. After a jury-waived trial based on stipulated evidence, the circuit court found Dawson guilty on both counts. The circuit court sentenced Dawson to five years of imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently with each other and with a five-year term of imprisonment imposed in a separate case. The circuit court also imposed a one year mandatory minimum term on Count I based on Dawson's status as a repeat offender.

On appeal, Dawson argues that "[t]he existence of a 'possible warrant' did not constitute reasonable suspicion enabling the police to detain Dawson, thus the lower court erred in denying Dawson's motion to suppress the pipe containing residue which the police observed during his illegal detention." For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Dawson's argument and affirm the circuit court's Judgment. [footnotes omitted]

Dissenting opinion by Foley, J. pdf