John S.W. Lim

The case concerned defendant Wayne Laeda's convictions on three counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree and three counts of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia, arising from controlled purchases of methamphetamine arranged with police assistance. Laeda appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending that a juror’s statements of inability to participate due to memory and hearing issues invalidated the unanimous verdict under constitutional protections. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule 606(b) prohibits courts from considering juror affidavits or testimony about internal mental processes or competence during deliberations to impeach the verdict. The court reasoned that such inquiries are limited to external influences and do not extend to a juror’s claimed inability to keep up or deliberate effectively.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Kalili appealing his convictions in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit for five counts of illegal camping in consolidated criminal cases. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii affirmed the circuit court's judgments. The court held that Kalili failed to establish that his conduct was constitutionally protected as a native Hawaiian right under the standard set in State v. Hanapi.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved defendant Elijah Eugene Amondson appealing his conviction in Hawaii district court for reckless driving under HRS § 291-2, based on testimony that he was speeding as measured by a laser gun on July 22, 2004. Amondson challenged the admission of the speed reading, the foundation for the officer's qualifications to operate the device, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove reckless disregard for safety. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that precedent established the laser gun's admissibility and that the State had laid an adequate foundation for the officer's testimony and testing procedures. The court further concluded there was sufficient evidence under the reckless driving statute and related definitions of recklessness to support the guilty verdict after a bench trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Swanson, Duane Swanson was convicted in family court of two misdemeanor counts of violating a protective order by contacting the complaining witness, including in-person contact and multiple telephone messages. Swanson appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to a public trial was violated when the jury deliberated and returned its verdict after courthouse business hours when the building was closed to the public. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the after-hours proceedings did not constitute a closure implicating the Sixth Amendment because the closure was inadvertent, there was no timely objection, and the limited circumstances did not undermine the values served by a public trial such as ensuring fairness and discouraging perjury. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving intentional courtroom closures and found that Defendant was present and the proceedings were otherwise recorded.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the defendant was convicted in district court of driving under the influence of alcohol while under the age of twenty-one and found liable for driving without headlights after a traffic stop at a DUI roadblock. The sole issue on appeal was whether the breath alcohol test result from an Intoxilyzer 5000EN should have been admitted into evidence, with the defendant arguing insufficient foundation due to lack of strict compliance with Department of Health rules on instrument approval. The court rejected the argument for strict compliance, holding that the rules integrate federal model specifications and allow for written approvals by the DUI coordinator, and that prior precedents did not impose such a requirement. It concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the test result and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant who sued her employer's insurer for bad faith after the insurer's settlement offer included a requirement that she resign her position in exchange for additional payment to close the entire claim. The court ruled that including a resignation term in a settlement offer does not amount to bad faith per se and that summary judgment for the insurer was appropriate. The court found that the claimant failed to present evidence supporting her allegations of bad faith conduct by the insurer, such as violations of insurance statutes or improper negotiation practices. The underlying dispute arose from two work-related injuries and the insurer's October 2001 settlement proposal based on medical evaluations rating her impairments.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Jonathan Asuncion's appeal of his conviction in family court for Abuse of Family or Household Members after a jury found he physically abused his girlfriend on January 27, 2003. Asuncion challenged the admission of evidence regarding three prior incidents of abuse against the same victim, arguing it was irrelevant under HRE Rule 404(b) and unduly prejudicial under HRE Rule 403. The court admitted the evidence to provide context for the victim's possible recantation at trial and to show the nature of the relationship, following precedents like State v. Clark. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and one-year sentence, concluding the prior acts were admissible for non-propensity purposes and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Hee Sung Yoo, the defendant was convicted by a jury of assault in the first degree, criminal property damage in the second degree, and assault in the second degree based on his involvement in baseball bat attacks on two individuals amid a dispute over control of local gambling operations, which caused serious injuries including broken bones and lacerations. On appeal, Yoo challenged certain jury instructions and argued that the state violated State v. Modica by charging him with first-degree assault rather than second-degree assault. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury instructions were properly given by agreement of the parties and contained no plain error, and that the prosecutor's charging decision did not constitute a Modica violation because such discretion is traditionally vested in the prosecution when the facts support the greater charge. The court found that the evidence of serious bodily injury to one victim and the use of a dangerous instrument against the other supported the charges as brought.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Emerson, the defendant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide ingress or egress while on a labor picket line, arguing he was entitled to a jury trial based on the six-month maximum jail term in the non-Code statute defining the offense. The court held that under the Hawaii Penal Code, specifically HRS § 701-107, the offense was classified as a petty misdemeanor because it was defined outside the Code with a maximum imprisonment term of less than one year, and the Code's HRS § 706-663 limited punishment to thirty days. Therefore, the defendant had no right to a jury trial, the circuit court's remand to district court was proper, and the conviction was affirmed. The reasoning centered on the Code's provisions overriding non-Code statutes for classification and sentencing of offenses to ensure consistent treatment.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Aaron C. Escobido-Ortiz's appeal from his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree after a jury trial in Hawaii circuit court. He and a co-defendant were charged with robbing a Taco Bell restaurant while armed with a knife, and the conviction rested in part on latent fingerprint evidence found inside the restaurant's safe along with testimony from witnesses and the co-defendant. On appeal, Escobido-Ortiz raised claims of error regarding the handling of the fingerprint identification, the denial of a continuance to obtain an expert, the admission of expert testimony, a challenge to a juror for cause, and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or trial management and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dennis K. Machado's appeal from his convictions, after a jury trial, for abuse of a family or household member and the included offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree, stemming from a September 2001 domestic altercation with his girlfriend at their shared residence. The defendant challenged the trial court's admission of extensive hearsay statements by the complaining witness under the excited utterance exception, its allowance of expert testimony on domestic violence, and its limitation of cross-examination regarding the witness's credibility. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the hearsay was properly admitted as an excited utterance, the expert testimony was not unfairly prejudicial, and the cross-examination limits did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In State v. Birano, defendant Arthur Birano was convicted by a jury of robbery in the first degree, kidnapping, burglary in the first degree, multiple counts of prohibited firearm possession, and using a firearm in the commission of a felony, all arising from a May 2001 incident in which he pointed a gun at a victim and demanded money. On appeal, Birano challenged the trial court's denial of a mistrial based on ex parte communications, its refusal to instruct the jury on a claim-of-right defense, various rulings on juror selection, evidence suppression, count merger, and prejudicial testimony, as well as the imposition of extended prison terms. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, concluding that any ex parte communication did not result in prejudice to Birano and that the remaining claims lacked merit under applicable evidentiary and procedural rules.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In State v. Kanamu, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, based on evidence from a traffic stop where an officer found methamphetamine and related items in the defendant's backpack. The circuit court sentenced him to concurrent five-year prison terms as a repeat offender under HRS § 706-606.5. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sentence, arguing that HRS § 706-622.5 should apply instead to prioritize rehabilitation, and contested the admission of testimony from the drug recognition expert officer. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the repeat offender statute applies by its plain language and precedent, and that the expert testimony was properly admitted as the officer met the necessary qualifications.

criminal law

In State v. Miller, Michael Damien Miller appealed his family court conviction for physically abusing his eleven-year-old nephew in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 709-906(1). Miller argued there was insufficient evidence to disprove his parental discipline defense under HRS § 703-309(1). The court affirmed the conviction after reviewing trial evidence, including testimony that Miller kicked and punched the child multiple times, grabbed him by the ear and hair, and threw rocks, causing injuries such as facial scratches, a head lump, and soreness. The opinion concluded that the force used was not reasonably necessary for discipline and created a risk of substantial bodily injury, making the defense inapplicable. The family court's rejection of the defense was therefore upheld as supported by the record.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Wing Chiu Ng, the defendant appealed the district court's summary denial of his HRPP Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief following his 1999 bench trial convictions for reckless driving and failure to yield to pedestrians. Ng raised claims including judicial bias, denial of a jury trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel, some of which had been mentioned in his earlier unsuccessful direct appeal and certiorari application. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Ng had knowingly waived these issues under HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) because he could have raised them previously without justification for the delay. The court further noted that the petition lacked a colorable claim warranting a hearing.

criminal lawprocedure