Hawai'i Legal News

Grube v. Trader (HSC June 5, 2018) Background. Honolulu Police Department Officer Alan Ahn and his girlfriend, Tiffany Masunaga, were indicted with multiple drug offenses. Ahn pleaded no contest, a rarity in Honolulu, and was sentenced to probation for four years with 60 days jail. The public records, however, reflect that Ahn’s case was still pending and does not show the change of plea and sentence. The circuit court held a subsequent hearing that started at 4:00 p.m. The record is unclear what happened at the hearing, but afterwards, the circuit court issued an order sealing the entire Ahn and Masunaga case. The order was later superseded by another order sealing only “those documents, court minutes, transcripts, and other information relating to the” 4 p.m. hearing. The circuit court vaguely referred to an ongoing investigation and the need for secrecy. About a year later, NickGrube , a reporter for Civil Beat , filed a motion to unseal “whatever documents were sealed” base...

Oahu Publications Inc. v. Ahn (HSC July 16, 2014) Background. Last summer, Christopher Deedy was on trial for the death of Kollin Elderts. After weeks of testimony, the case went to the jury for deliberation. The jury deliberated for several days before it became hopelessly deadlocked and the circuit court, Judge Karen Ahn, declared a mistrial. This case was covered by Oahu Publications, better known as the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and KHNL/KGMB. On the fifth day of jury deliberations, Judge Ahn held five hearings that were not open to the public at the end of which, Judge Ahn sealed portions of transcripts pertaining to these sessions. At the last proceeding, Judge Ahn ordered the courtroom cleared a few times. The media did not object to the closing of the courtroom. When they resumed in the open, Judge Ahn declared a mistrial. A few weeks later, the Star-Advertiser and KHNL/KGMB (the media) filed in the HSC petitions for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus on the g...

Naipo v. Border (HSC May 18, 2011) Background. Eshell Mitchell sued the Yuen family after Braddah, the Yuen dog, bit her. At the time of the incident, Mitchell was living with Jennifer Naipo. Mitchell claimed that the Naipo was bitten several times by Braddah several months before it bit her. The Yuens denied that their dog had bitten anyone. Naipo was deposed. She didn't have a lawyer. The Yuen's lawyer told her that she could refuse to answer a question that she believed invaded her personal privacy. Naipo answered all the questions. Naipo testified that she was not taken to the hospital for an injury to her forehead but that she went to the Wahiawa Hospital because a different Yuen dog, Misty, had been bitten her several times on the arm. Mitchell deposed Nanea Yuen. Nanea testified that Misty bit Naipo on her forehead, not her arm, and that they had to go to the hospital for that. In light of the conflicting testimony, Mitchell sought a subpoena d...

Murasko v. Loo (HSC March 7, 2011) Background. The Muraskos filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction against their neighbors, the Curells. District Court Judge Loo reviewed the petition, granted the TRO, and set a hearing to determine a longer injunction. The Curells, appearing pro se, filed a response denying the allegations. At the hearing, the parties presented evidence, Judge Loo granted the petition, and ordered a three year injunction to take effect August 10. On August 12, the Curells, now with counsel, filed a motion for an extension of time in order to file "post-verdict motions." Counsel for the Curells explained in the motion that he had been retained on August 5, and was unable to file any motions because he would be on vacation from August 11 through August 18. Counsel wanted to extend the time to Sept. 1. The district court granted the motion. On Sept. 1, the Curells filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to D...

Honolulu Police Dept. v. Town (HSC February 4, 2010) Background. Odeb Kay was charged with various felonies. Kay obtained discoverable material from the prosecution regarding the complaining witness's criminal history. Kay issued and served a subpoena duces tecum on the Honolulu Police Department pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 17(b). Kay wanted five police reports made in connection with an arrest of the complaining witness. HPD moved to quash on the grounds that it was impermissible discovery and an attempt to circumvent discovery requests from the prosecutor. The motion to quash was denied. HPD petitioned for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is Proper Because HPD--a Third Party--is Not Permitted to Appeal. The right to appeal from a criminal case "exists only when given by some constitutional or statutory provision." Grattifiori v. State , 79 Hawai'i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1990). The parties in criminal cases may appeal...

State v. Lo (HSC Oct. 30, 2007) Background. The defendant, Jack Miller, was cited for excessive speeding in violation of HRS § 291C-105(a)(1) for allegedly driving 76 mph in a 35-mph zone. The police measured the speed of Miller's car with a laser gun. Pursuant to HRPP Rule 16, Miller sought particular items relating to the laser gun: the manufacturer's operation and maintenance manuals; certification documents; police maintenance records; manufacture and acquisition dates; warranty documents; laser readings; firearm qualification test results for the officer who cited Miller; fixed distance used to calibrate the laser gun and the location where the calibration took place; and “delta distance” used to calibrate the laser gun and location. The State refused to disclose, and Miller filed a motion to compel their discovery on the grounds that these items were discoverable when the conviction is based solely on the laser gun reading. The district court ordered the disclosure of o...