Posts

Highlighting the difference between inadequate notice and a defective complaint

  State v. Aquino (HSC June 28, 2024) Background. Alexander Aquino was charged with unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. HRS § 707-721(1)(a). Here is the charge:   On or about the August 1, 2020 through August 21, 2021, in Kona, County and State of Hawai‘i, ALEXANDER AQUINO, as a principle [sic] or accomplice, knowingly restrained another person, L.R., a minor born in June of 2007, under circumstances which exposed L.R. to the risk of serious bodily injury, thereby committing the offense of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree, in violation of Section 707-721(1)(a), Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, as amended.   Aquino filed a motion to dismiss. The statutory term “restrain” means “to restrict a person’s movement in such a manner as to interfere substantially with the person’s liberty” either through force, threat, or deception or “[i]f the person is under the age of eighteen or incompetent, without the consent of the relative, person, or institution h...

When it comes to determining an "interrogation," there are no exceptions

  State v. Hoffman (HSC October 17, 2024) Background. Officer Warren Tavares is an officer with the Department of Land and Natural Resources on the leeward side of Kauai. He saw Randall Hoffman dumping green waste in a trailer attached to a truck. Officer Tavares stopped, approached Hoffman, and pointed to a sign that stated dumping was prohibited. Officer Tavares told Hoffman to stop throwing the green waste because it was illegal. Hoffman responded by saying, “Fuck you, I don’t give a shit.”   In an effort to get Hoffman to stop, Officer Tavares told Hoffman that this was unlawful, and he could get cited and arrested for criminal littering. He also said that the State and other agencies worked together, spent more than $100,000 cleaning up the area. He added this was a high crime area with lots of abandoned cars and there had been “drug activity.”   Hoffman responded to that by saying “Fuck you.” Hoffman explained that he was turned away from the Hanapepe Ref...

From leading questions to closing argument: a steady drip of prosecutorial misconduct

  State v. Cardona (HSC September 20, 2024) Background. Oscar Cardona was indicted with murder in the second degree. Before trial, he notified the court and the prosecution that he suffers from an eye disease called myopic degeneration, has extremely blurred vision, and wears glasses. At the time of the incident, his glasses were damaged and had been he could not see. The circuit court—with the Honorable Judge Kevin Morikone presiding—ruled that Cardona could present the evidence at trial.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that one summer’s night in Waikiki, Elijah Horn was talking to some women when Elian Delacerda and Osvaldo Castaneda-Pena approached them. The men got vulgar and aggressive. Horn got scared and called Cardona to come help because he was like a father figure to him. Cardona showed up and pulled out a gold knife. Cardona and Horn told Delacerda and Castaneda-Pena to leave.   Delacerda and Castaneda-Pena attacked Horn. Horn hit Cast...

ICA: poor people outside the circuit of their trial either appear in chains and in custody or pay their own way

  State v. Campbell (ICA September 19, 2024) Background. Corey Campbell was charged with assaulting a police officer in the first degree and two petty misdemeanors while she was on vacation from Massachusetts. She was arrested and detained because she could not afford to bail out. The court let her out on conditions of release and allowed her to “fly back home to Massachusetts and live in Massachusetts.” She went home. She made eleven appearances in court by zoom. Trial was not set for more than a year after the charges were brought.   In advance of her trial date, her court-appointed counsel (the public defender withdrew based on irreconcilable differences), filed a motion for the court to pay the expenses of returning to Hawai'i to attend her trial. The requested costs included airfare, lodging, and transportation. The court—with the Honorable Judge Kirstin M. Hamman—granted the motion and approved the order. Weeks later, it rescinded the order on the grounds that it ...

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...

ICA determines when a “modification” to probation terms is also an “enlargement” invoking the tolling statute

  State v. Wilbur-Delima (ICA July 29, 2024) Background. Kamalei Wilbur-Delima was charged with multiple offenses in three different felony cases. He was sentenced to probation but it was revoked. He also picked up another felony case. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced and resentenced to probation. The judgment of conviction and the resentencing orders with conditions was entered on April 26, 2017. Two months later, Wilbur-Delima entered the Hawai'i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Probation Program, a program on Oahu designed to give “swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions” for violations.   From 2017 through 2020, the prosecution filed motions when Wilbur-Delima violated the terms of his probation. The prosecution called these motions for “Modification” of the terms and conditions. Wilbur-Delima did not contest the violations and was sanctioned with a jail ranging from 3 to 41 days jail. It later changed the title to a motion to modify...