Family Courts Retain Jurisdiction even After Dismissal of Offenses Relating to the Family

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 State v. Milne (HSC June 23, 2021)

Background. Noguchi Milne was charged with one count of abuse of a family or household member based on abusing his girlfriend and one count of assault in the third degree based on abusing his girlfriend’s father. The complainants were not sharing the same household. At a trial call, the prosecution moved to continue trial because both witnesses did not come to court. The family court, with the Hon. Judge Kevin Souza presiding, granted the motion over Milne’s objection. Milne orally moved to dismiss the assault count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The family court stated at the hearing that it had concurrent jurisdiction and decided to dismiss the count without prejudice to let the prosecution file another complaint in the district court. In its written order, however, the family court stated that it dismissed the count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The family court granted the motion and issued a dismissal order. The prosecution appealed.

 

In the meantime, trial continued for the abuse count. At the second trial call, none of the prosecution’s witnesses came to court. The prosecution moved to continue again. Milne objected and orally moved to dismiss the case. The family court, with the Hon. Judge Blain A. Costa presiding, granted the motion.

 

At the ICA, Milne conceded that the family court had jurisdiction over the assault count, but asserted it was contingent on the abuse charge. Milne also argued that the dismissal of the assault count was an exercise of discretion and should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The ICA vacated the dismissal order and held that the family court erred in dismissing the count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Milne petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

 

Family Court’s Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction. The family court has “concurrent jurisdiction with the district court over violations of sections 707-712 . . . when multiple offenses are charged through complaint or indictment and at least one offense is a violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586 or a violation of [the abuse of family or household member statute.].” HRS § 571-14(b). The HSC held that the plain language of this statute confers concurrent jurisdiction with the district court over the assault count.

 

The HSC rejected Milne’s claims that the family court exercised its discretion in declining to hear the assault count. First, it noted that subject matter is not a matter of discretion. The Courts “have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided by law[.]” Haw. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 1. Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain kinds of cases and can “issue all orders and writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their original jurisdiction.” HRS § 571-8.5(a)(3).

 

Written Rulings Trump the Oral. The HSC also rejected Milne’s argument that the statements of the judge should control over the written order of dismissal. First of all, according to the HSC, they were consistent with each other. Both stated that there was a lack of jurisdiction (which it held was wrong as a matter of law). But even if it was inconsistent, the written order generally controls over the judge’s oral statements. See Nat’l Home Centers, Inc. v. Coleman, 257 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Ark. 2007) (“If a trial court’s ruling from the bench is not reduced to writing and filed of record, it is free to alter its decision upon further consideration of the matter. Simply put, the written order controls.”).

 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Continues over the Assault Count Even After the Dismissal of the Abuse Count. Concurrent jurisdiction over the non-family charge, in this case the assault count, was invoked when the complaint was charged. HRS § 571-14(b) (concurrent jurisdiction with district court extends when “multiple offenses are charged through complaint”). The statute, according to the HSC, does not require the family court offense—be it abuse or restraining order charge—to be pending for subject matter jurisdiction to continue. The HSC based this interpretation on the legislative history. The HSC also noted that limiting jurisdiction would lead to absurd results. Accordingly, the HSC upheld the vacation of the dismissal order.

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