HSC Reels in ICA over Inherent Court Powers.

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

State v. Hinton (HSC March 20, 2009)

Background.  Hinton was first indicted for allegedly touching a girl (sex assault in the 3d. -- HRS § 707-7321(1)(b)).  As the jury deliberated, the jurors informed the trial court that they could not reach a unanimous verdict.  The jury was hopelessly deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial.  Hinton moved for a dismissal pursuant to State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (1982).  The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.

The ICA reversed the trial court's dismissal.  Relying on cases from different jurisdictions, the ICA concluded that separation of powers concerns require that a Moriwake dismissal be used sparingly.  The ICA  held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Moriwake motion.  Judge Foley dissented.  Hinton appealed.

Moriwake and the Inherent Power to Dismiss.  The trial court's inherent power "to protect itself; the power to administer justice whether any previous form of remedy has been granted or not; the power to promulgate rules for its practice; and the power to provide process where none exists" allows the court to dismiss a prosecution.  Moriwake, 65 Haw. at 55, 647 P.2d at 712.

In determining whether to exercise that power, the court must balance "the interest of the state against fundamental fairness to a defendant with the added ingredient of the orderly functioning of the court system."  Id. at 56, 647 P.2d at 712.  In striking this balance, the court examines six factors: (1) the severity of the offense; (2) the number of prior mistrials and the circumstances of the jury deliberations therein; (3) the character of the prior trials in terms of length, complexity, and similarity of evidence presented; (4) the likelihood of any substantial difference in another trial; (5) the trial court's own evaluation of the case; and (6) the professional conduct and diligence of counsel, especially the prosecutor.  Id. at 56, 647 P.2d at 712-13.

The Moriwake Framework Subsumes any Separation of Powers Concerns.  The HSC rejected the ICA's current view that separation of powers concerns require that the power to dismiss an indictment be used in rare and unusual cases.  According to the HSC, the Moriwake balancing test rejects the notion that the trial court's discretionary power to dismiss an indictment was limited to "extraordinary situations."  Any separation of powers concerns are subsumed in the six-factored analysis itself.  At oral argument the State conceded this point.

A Scolding?  The HSC held that "by injecting an additional 'separation of powers' analysis, taken from two out-of-state cases, into the Moriwake framework, the ICA acted in contravention of this jurisdiction's case law." In a footnote, the HSC pointed out that the ICA's decision to look to foreign jurisdictions "in the face of controlling Hawai'i law was a departure from this court's precedent, which the ICA is bound to follow."  Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 65 Haw. 641, 653, 658 P.2d 287, 297 (1982).  According to the HSC, the ICA "casts the law in disarray, creating uncertainty for trial courts, the prosecution, and the defense" when it does not follow precedent.

The HSC also noted that the ICA itself was inconsistent when it came to Moriwake by citing to an unpublished disposition in January 2008 where the ICA affirmed a dismissal over Chief Judge Recktenwald's dissent based on similar separation-of-powers concerns.  This, according to the HSC, will simply not do.  In light of the new rule regarding unpublished dispositions, "it is especially important for the ICA to consistently follow precedent, which, in the instant case, it failed to do so."

Applying Moriwake.  The HSC also rejected the ICA's application of the Moriwake framework.  The HSC examined each of the six factors and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.  And so it is clear that the trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a prosecution on Moriwake grounds without prior mistrials.  All of it, of course, is a delicate balance.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

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

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  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...
Read more