Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Cabagbag
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-17 · cited 46×
The case involved the prosecution of Steve Cabagbag for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle and second-degree theft, based primarily on a police officer’s eyewitness identification of him as the person who drove a stolen truck containing stolen tools late at night. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that, going forward, trial courts must give a specific jury instruction on evaluating eyewitness identification evidence whenever such evidence is central to the case and the defendant requests the instruction; the court also adopted a model instruction for that purpose. The ruling rests on the established risks of misidentification and the need to guide juries in assessing factors like observation conditions, witness certainty, and potential biases. The ICA’s affirmance of the conviction was reviewed in this context, with the new instruction requirement applied prospectively.
criminal lawprocedure
Kakinami v. Kakinami
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-16 · cited 47×
In Kakinami v. Kakinami, a divorce case, Aaron Kakinami appealed the family court's Supplemental Divorce Decree, which classified gifts and inheritances received by Bonnie Kakinami during their marriage as Marital Separate Property and awarded them entirely to her, while also challenging later orders requiring him to pay her share of the marital residence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Hawaii Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether Marital Separate Property could be divided and whether the family court had jurisdiction over post-decree enforcement orders. The court held that the family court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the property solely to Bonnie, as Marital Separate Property remains non-divisible under the Partnership Model of property division established in Hussey v. Hussey. It further ruled that the family court retained jurisdiction to issue the February 2009 order compelling payment, because that order enforced rather than modified the original decree. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the ICA's judgment.
family lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Pratt
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-11 · cited 17×
The case concerned Lloyd Pratt, who was cited three times for violating park closure rules by residing in a restricted area of Nā Pali Coast State Park on Kauaʻi; he moved to dismiss the charges by asserting a defense under Article XII, § 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution that his conduct constituted a protected customary or traditional native Hawaiian practice. Building on the three-prong minimum test from State v. Hanapi, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that a defendant who satisfies those requirements is entitled to a further balancing analysis in which the court weighs the strength of the claimed native Hawaiian right against the state's interest in enforcing the regulation at issue. The court clarified that this mixed question of law and fact is reviewed by applying clear-error review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, then vacated the convictions and remanded for proper application of the balancing test.
criminal lawcivil rightsenvironmentprocedure
Berry v. Berry
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-11 · cited 3×
In Berry v. Berry, a divorce case, Wayne Berry sought to set aside a 2008 divorce decree that awarded his copyrights to his ex-wife Julianne after he failed to appear at a settlement conference, resulting in a default judgment. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the family court properly denied most of the motion to set aside the decree because Berry had received notice that nonappearance could lead to default. However, the court ruled that the decree’s transfer of Berry’s full ownership interest in the copyrights to his ex-wife violated federal copyright law, which reserves control over ownership, transfer, and related rights exclusively to federal authority and permits only division of economic interests. The court therefore vacated that portion of the decree, affirmed the rest, and remanded for a determination of the economic interest to which Julianne Berry was entitled.
family lawpropertyfederal powerprocedure
Cabral v. State
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-09 · cited 6×
The case arose from a 2000 fatal car accident on a Hawaii highway, in which the plaintiffs sued the State for negligence and wrongful death after settling with the other driver; they lost at a bench trial when the circuit court found the State not liable. After the circuit court entered judgment for the State in April 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal after the standard 30-day deadline but within an extended deadline granted by a trial-court order based on the parties’ stipulation. The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice was untimely and the extension order was invalid under the appellate rules. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that, under the unique factual circumstances presented, the ICA erred in dismissing the appeal; it vacated that dismissal and remanded for merits review. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on a pre-deadline court order extending the filing date, the State was not prejudiced, and equitable principles permitted excusing the late filing.
proceduretorts & liability
Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2012-05-09 · cited 17×
The case concerned whether beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act could sue to compel the Hawai‘i legislature to provide additional funding to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands under Article XII, Section 1 of the state constitution, which requires the legislature to make “sufficient sums” available for four purposes: lot development, loans, rehabilitation projects, and DHHL administration and operations. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that the political question doctrine does not bar courts from determining what constitutes “sufficient sums” for administrative and operating expenses, but does bar such determinations for the other three purposes. The court reasoned that the constitutional text and its convention history provide no judicially manageable standards for deciding how much funding is “sufficient” or how quickly homesteads must be developed for those three categories, rendering any declaratory judgment on those issues nonjusticiable. It therefore affirmed the ICA on narrower grounds, limiting justiciability to the administrative-expense claim.
civil rightspropertyprocedure