Dolan v. HILO MEDICAL CENTER
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2012-04-12
This case involves claims by the estates of Rosalinda Iturralde and Arturo Iturralde against Hilo Medical Center, Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, the State of Hawaii, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, and Dr. Robert Ricketson, arising from medical treatment and related equipment. The specific opinion addresses Medtronic's motion seeking reconsideration of the Intermediate Court of Appeals' March 30, 2012 decision. After reviewing the motion, case records, and files, the court denied the motion for reconsideration.
healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure
Fukusaku v. State
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2012-04-03 · cited 3×
In Fukusaku v. State, petitioner Raita Fukusaku, convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, challenged the Hawaii Paroling Authority’s (HPA) decision after resentencing to raise his aggregate minimum term of imprisonment from 40 to 50 years. The Circuit Court had resentenced him to consecutive life terms without the original mandatory minimums (vacated on appeal because the jury had not found firearm use), yet the HPA increased his minimum terms from consecutive 20-year to 25-year periods, citing only the “Nature of Offense” and no new information or changed circumstances. Fukusaku filed a petition arguing the HPA’s action was arbitrary and capricious; the Circuit Court denied it without a hearing. The appellate court vacated that denial and remanded, holding that the petition stated a colorable claim because the unexplained increase after a successful challenge to the sentence could reflect vindictiveness or violate HPA guidelines requiring uniform, justified minimum-term decisions.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Higa
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2012-01-31 · cited 2×
In State v. Higa, defendant Matthew Higa was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree murder for throwing a 23-month-old child to his death from a freeway overpass while under the influence of methamphetamine and amphetamine. On appeal, Higa raised issues concerning his privately retained counsel's potential conflict of interest stemming from a power of attorney that gave the attorney control over Higa's structured settlement funds, questions about Higa's competency to execute or waive that arrangement while his fitness to proceed was under review, and the admissibility of his statements to police. The circuit court addressed the conflict through a waiver declaration signed by Higa, transfer of the power of attorney to a third-party attorney, and input from disciplinary counsel; it also found the statements admissible as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary after proper Miranda warnings. The appellate court examined the related findings of fact and conclusions of law on these points, along with the attorney's continued representation despite the court's earlier concerns.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Brooks
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011-12-02 · cited 2×
In State v. Brooks, defendant Curtis Ray Brooks and co-defendant Sistine Rangamar were charged with the murder, kidnapping, and robbery of Ted Arifuku; Rangamar gave a police statement admitting his own involvement while implicating Brooks in the crimes, then committed suicide before trial. Brooks sought to introduce only the self-incriminating portions of the statement under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest to support his defense that Rangamar acted alone, while the State contended that the rule of completeness (HRE Rule 106) required admission of additional portions implicating Brooks if the statement was used at all. The trial court ruled that Brooks’s tactical choice to introduce selected excerpts would waive or forfeit any Confrontation Clause objection to the State’s responsive use of completing portions, and it permitted the State to introduce those excerpts at trial after Brooks proceeded with his plan; the jury convicted Brooks of manslaughter, kidnapping, and robbery. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the selective introduction of the statement risked misleading the jury and that Brooks’s affirmative choice to present the evidence forfeited his Crawford-based confrontation claim as to the limited, context-restoring portions admitted under Rule 106.
criminal lawprocedure
Low v. MINICHINO
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011-09-29 · cited 8×
The case involved a dispute over Marie Minichino's cancellation of a real estate purchase agreement with David Low, where Low sued for breach after Minichino failed to complete the purchase due to financing issues; the matter was sent to binding arbitration, which ruled in Low's favor based on findings that Minichino had not properly terminated the contract or kept Low informed. Minichino moved to vacate the award, alleging it was procured by fraud through Low's perjured testimony denying receipt of her termination emails, and she later located copies of those emails after the hearing. The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the circuit court erred in summarily denying the motion to vacate and confirming the award without an evidentiary hearing or findings of fact. The court reasoned that Minichino had presented a prima facie case of fraud through newly available evidence of the emails, which required a hearing to evaluate whether the perjury met the criteria for vacating an arbitration award, such as whether it was material and could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence.
propertyprocedure
Lee v. United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011-08-04 · cited 6×
In this case, public employee Amy Lee sued her employer, the State of Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, for allegedly breaching a collective bargaining agreement through her wrongful termination, and sued her union, United Public Workers AFSCME Local 646, for breaching its duty of fair representation by declining to pursue her grievance to arbitration. Lee filed this hybrid action directly in circuit court without first seeking relief from the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Hawai'i Supreme Court affirmed, holding that HRS § 89-14 grants the HLRB exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies involving prohibited practices under collective bargaining agreements, including hybrid claims of this type, and that federal precedents like Vaca v. Sipes did not apply to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the courts. The court also upheld the circuit court's partial award of attorney's fees related to the default judgment proceedings.
labor & employmentprocedure