Daniel R. Foley

In State v. Andres, defendant Ray Cardona Andres was convicted by a jury of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, a class B felony, and challenged the circuit court's decision to sentence him as a repeat offender under HRS § 706-606.5 based on his 1991 federal conviction for attempting to possess crystal methamphetamine for distribution. The circuit court granted the State's motion for repeat-offender sentencing and imposed a mandatory minimum term, which the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The court interpreted the statutory phrase "maximum term of imprisonment possible after a prior felony conviction of another jurisdiction" to mean the maximum sentence authorized by the federal statute of conviction itself, rather than the specific range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that applied to Andres (121-151 months). Relying on the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in State v. Heggland, the court concluded that Andres committed the new offense within the applicable period measured by the federal statutory maximum, making the repeat-offender provisions applicable.

criminal law

This case concerned a labor arbitration dispute between the United Public Workers union and the County of Hawai'i over whether Unit 1 employees on unpaid leave were entitled to holiday pay and benefits under the parties' 2003 collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled for the union and issued a final award granting back pay and other relief; the First Circuit Court confirmed the award, and the County appealed while the union separately challenged a subsequent stay of enforcement. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation, holding that the First Circuit was the proper venue, the award did not violate public policy under HRS § 89-9(d)(7), and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by addressing collateral estoppel. The court reviewed the circuit court's decision de novo but applied an extremely narrow and deferential standard to the arbitration award itself.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a father's conviction in family court for Abuse of Family or Household Member after he pushed and struck his eleven-year-old son on the leg following the child's repeated denial of causing a closet door to stick during chores. Dowling appealed, arguing that the State failed to disprove his parental discipline defense under HRS § 703-309(1), that any mental distress did not meet the statutory threshold, and that the force used was proportional and necessary. The Intermediate Court of Appeals examined the evidence regarding the force's relation to the child's welfare under subsection (1)(a) and whether it created a risk of extreme pain or mental distress under subsection (1)(b). The court concluded that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence only to disprove the defense under (1)(a) and not under (1)(b), leading to the conviction being vacated and the case remanded for retrial limited to the (1)(a) issue.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved a father appealing an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequent order issued by the family court that prohibited contact with his minor child based on the mother's petition alleging physical hitting and emotional abuse. After an evidentiary hearing, the family court found the material allegations proven and extended the TRO until its expiration date. The father, appearing pro se, challenged the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 586 as infringing parental rights and due process, claimed gender bias in the ex parte process, and argued the court abused its discretion in finding abuse. The appellate court affirmed the orders, concluding the father's arguments lacked merit because the statutes properly balance emergency protection needs against due process by allowing ex parte relief for imminent harm while providing prompt post-deprivation hearings, and the evidence supported the findings of recent abusive acts.

family lawcivil rights

The case concerned a charitable gift of land to the Hawaiian Humane Society under deeds restricting its use to an educational preserve for flora and fauna, with an alternative distribution to the State of Hawaii for a public park if the restriction could not be met. After finding the original purpose impracticable due to cost, access issues, and neighborhood impact, the Society petitioned the Probate Court to apply the cy pres doctrine and approve a three-way land exchange that would transfer interests to the State and a private partner while using sale proceeds for the Society's educational programs. The Probate Court denied the petition, concluding that cy pres did not apply because the deeds created a specific rather than general charitable intent and the proposed transaction did not match the stated purpose. The appellate court reversed, holding that the deeds evidenced general charitable intent, the designated use had become impossible or impracticable, and cy pres therefore permitted modification to fulfill the donor's broader purpose; it vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to approve the exchange.

property

The case concerned a challenge by the State of Hawaii to orders by the Public Utilities Commission finding that a 1961 agreement requiring free sewerage services to certain schools and parks was unenforceable to the extent it conflicted with the tariff rates of Hawaii-American Water Company, the successor to the original sewer provider. After private sewer companies were brought under PUC regulation by 1974 legislation, the Commission had approved a tariff requiring all customers to pay approved rates and had imputed revenue from the free services when setting those rates. The court affirmed the Commission's orders, holding that the filed-rate doctrine requires the utility to charge only the Commission-approved tariff rates and renders inconsistent contract terms unenforceable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Alaka'i Na Keiki, Inc. (ANK), which submitted a proposal in response to the Hawaii Department of Education's Request for Proposals for instructional support services under HRS Chapter 103F but was rejected for failing to meet the minimum scoring threshold after initial and re-scored evaluations. ANK protested the scoring and denial through administrative channels, then filed suit in circuit court challenging the decision on grounds including the unconstitutionality of Chapter 103F, entitlement to judicial review under the Hawaii Constitution and HRS § 603-21.9, potential tort liability, and requests for injunctive relief. The circuit court dismissed the claims, granted judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment to the defendant Superintendent, and denied ANK's summary judgment motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that judicial review under HRS Chapter 91 was precluded by HRS § 103F-504 and that ANK had received adequate consideration of its arguments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this consolidated divorce appeal, Husband and Wife disputed post-decree orders from the family court concerning enforcement of the wife's share of the husband's military retirement benefits and an award of educational child support for their 26-year-old daughter. The family court denied the wife's motion seeking in-lieu payments for her portion of the retirement benefits and ordered the husband to pay educational support. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of enforcement because the wife did not demonstrate that the husband had received disposable retired pay subject to division under the decree and the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act. It vacated and remanded the child support order for failure to make required findings on the adult child's needs, earnings, contributions, and the parents' resources as mandated by the child support guidelines.

family law

The case involved a dispute between two unions representing different groups of Hawaii state employees (UPW for non-supervisory blue-collar workers and HGEA for supervisory ones) over which union's members should receive temporary assignments to fill vacant supervisory positions, after each union separately arbitrated and won awards against the Department of Transportation. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii affirmed the circuit court's denial of UPW's request to compel tripartite arbitration involving both unions and the employer. The court reasoned that the unions' collective bargaining agreements did not authorize or require consolidated arbitration, the prior bipartite awards did not create irreconcilable conflicts mandating consolidation under HRS § 658A-10, and precedents favored resolving the matter through the existing bipartite processes or collective bargaining rather than court-ordered tripartite proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Aregger v. State, Department of Taxation, taxpayers appealed a Board of Taxation Review decision favoring the Director of Taxation to the Tax Appeal Court but served their Notice of Appeal only on a tax examiner rather than the Director. The Director moved to dismiss, arguing that the 2007 amendments to HRS § 232-17 made timely service on the Director mandatory for jurisdiction. The tax appeal court granted the motion, and the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute requires direct service on the Director to confer subject matter jurisdiction and that conflicting court rules cannot alter this jurisdictional requirement. The court reasoned that failure to comply with the statutory service provision is a non-waivable jurisdictional defect.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the United Public Workers union and the City of Honolulu over class action grievances alleging violations of collective bargaining agreements, which the parties had agreed to arbitrate. After the arbitrator ruled that the grievances were arbitrable and would proceed to a merits determination, the circuit court confirmed that ruling as an award. The City appealed, arguing procedural errors in the confirmation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the arbitrator's interlocutory determination on arbitrability was not a final award under HRS § 658A-28(a)(3) because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the merits.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Kewalo Ocean Activities and Kahala Catamarans against state officials from the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) and Department of Transportation (DOT), seeking to prevent HCDA from assuming management and operation of Kewalo Basin Harbor pursuant to proposed administrative rules. The circuit court granted the state defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that HCDA has jurisdiction and administrative authority over the harbor under HRS Chapter 206E because the legislature conveyed title to the underlying lands to HCDA as part of the Kakaako District and granted it broad redevelopment powers without exception. The court reasoned that these specific provisions control over the more general DOT authority over commercial harbors in HRS Chapter 266, as confirmed by legislative history including Acts 86, 272, and 165.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose from a 2000 Honolulu car accident in which defendant Momohara admitted negligence and caused injuries to plaintiff Weite, who sought damages including medical expenses after treatment by several providers. Following a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment for Weite in a reduced amount after apportioning damages and subtracting an insurance deductible, prompting appeals and cross-appeals over evidentiary rulings on medical necessity and preexisting conditions, jury instructions and verdict forms on apportionment, expert testimony regarding medical costs, the method of calculating the final award, and prevailing-party determinations for costs and sanctions. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the bulk of the judgment, including liability and most evidentiary decisions, but vacated the damages-calculation portion of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings on apportionment and costs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Peter Tia, who was convicted after a jury trial of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree (a class B felony) and Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (a class C felony). At sentencing, the circuit court imposed a mandatory minimum term of three years and four months based on Tia's prior 1997 felony convictions in another case, treating him as a repeat offender under HRS § 706-606.5. Tia appealed, arguing that the State had not sufficiently proven he was the same person named in the prior convictions using only certified court documents and the presentence report. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Tia had not raised a good-faith challenge to his identity in the prior case and that the evidence adequately supported the repeat-offender determination.

criminal law

In State v. Brooks, Dennis Brooks appealed his convictions for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, and unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle arising from an April 2006 incident in which he and two others allegedly restrained a taxi driver, beat him, stole his property and vehicle, and left him injured. The circuit court had admitted evidence of Brooks's prior convictions under certain conditions, declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses, and sentenced him as a repeat offender to consecutive terms including mandatory minimums. On appeal, Brooks challenged the admission of his criminal history, the refusal to give lesser-offense instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence for robbery, and the classification of the kidnapping as a Class A felony. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding prior-conviction evidence, that sufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction, that the jury's findings precluded reduction of the kidnapping charge, and that any instructional issues did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Tyler Condon's appeal from his 2009 conviction for second-degree murder after he stabbed his cousin to death, where Condon had claimed the act was justified by self-defense or mitigated by extreme mental or emotional distress (EMED). The Intermediate Court of Appeals examined Condon's challenges to the circuit court's jury instructions on self-defense and EMED, as well as five statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court held that the jury instructions were not erroneous, as they properly placed the burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense and were consistent with precedent. However, the court found that the prosecutor's comment implying "overkill" is required to establish EMED was improper and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as it could have led jurors to reject the EMED manslaughter verdict. The court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mother's appeal of a family court order terminating her parental rights over her child RW and awarding permanent custody to the Hawaii Department of Human Services. The mother challenged findings that she could not provide a safe home within a reasonable time, arguing insufficient evidence of her inability to be protective, inadequate reunification services and opportunities, and lack of credibility in DHS testimony. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the family court's determinations, including the mother's ongoing relationship with the father who had harmed the child, her deception about contacts and a new pregnancy, her failure to prioritize RW's needs or inquire about the child, and her lack of demonstrated insight despite offered services. The court applied the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and deferred to the trial court's credibility assessments and weighing of evidence.

family law

In Smith v. State, Regina Smith appealed the denial of her third petition for post-conviction relief under HRPP Rule 40 after her 1993 convictions for multiple counts of sexual assault in the first and third degrees, for which she received an extended term of imprisonment that was affirmed on direct appeal. In the petition, Smith argued that her extended sentence under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 706-662 was unconstitutional on its face and therefore void ab initio, while explicitly disclaiming any reliance on retroactive application of Apprendi v. New Jersey. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of the petition, concluding that the sentence was not void ab initio in light of precedents including State v. Jess, Loher v. State, and State v. Cutsinger.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Chin sued her former attorney Carpenter-Asui for legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages, alleging mishandling of Chin's underlying marital status discrimination case against her employer that led to an adverse fees judgment and a coerced settlement waiving appeal rights. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the malpractice, contract, and fiduciary duty claims, concluding the attorney met the applicable standard of care, but vacated summary judgment on the IIED claim as to the handling of the attorney's fees motion and related settlement pressure because genuine issues of material fact existed, leaving punitive damages viable to that extent, and remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Kotani, the defendant appealed his conviction for excessive speeding in the District Court of the First Circuit after a laser gun reading was admitted into evidence. Kotani contended that the evidence lacked proper foundation under State v. Assaye because the State did not show the device was tested according to manufacturer procedures. The State conceded insufficient proof for excessive speeding but argued the record supported conviction on the lesser included infraction of speeding based on an officer's visual observations. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, ruling that neither the laser reading nor the testimony established a violation of the posted speed limit.

criminal lawprocedure