Posts

When you say it's in the discovery, attach the discovery

  In re: JB (ICA June 6, 2025). The prosecution filed a petition against a minor alleging that the minor committed assault in the third degree. It alleged that the minor “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause[d] bodily injury” to the complainant in violation of HRS § 707-712(1)(a). But the petition did not identify or define the “bodily injury.”   The minor moved to dismiss the petition because it did not specify and violated the rule in State v. Jadine , 151 Hawai'i 96, 99, 508 P.3d 1182, 1185 (2022). In response to the motion, the prosecution alleged that “all of the information supplied to the accused prior to the filing of their motion must be considered” and argued that it gave the minor “discovery” that specified the injury supporting the charge. The family court denied the motion to dismiss.   At trial the complainant testified that the minor was one of three boys who had hit and physically hurt him. The family court adjudicated the minor as a law v...

Getting out of a plea deal the (not so) easy way?

  State v. Walter (HSC June 5, 2025). Weiser Walter was indicted for attempted murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and attempted 2d degree murder after he was arrested for stabbing his adoptive sister and four-year-old nephew, who later died of his injuries. He was represented by deputy public defender, Crystal Glendon. He claimed that he had been guided by demons or God and wanted to asserted the insanity defense in HRS Chapter 704. The circuit court granted a motion to have three evaluators determine his mental state at the time of the offense. Two out of the three concluded that Walter lacked penal responsibility. The third’s opinion was non-conclusive.   The prosecution moved to bring in two additional experts to assess Walter’s penal responsibility. His attorney simply made a “record objection”—an objection with no legal basis or argument. The motion was granted. These additional experts concluded that Walter was penally responsible.   Af...

The use of deadly force must be necessary—not immediately necessary.

  State v. Reis (ICA February 27, 2025) Background. Brandon Reis was on trial for attempted murder in the second degree. At trial, he argued he acted in self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury about the use of lethal force in self-defense by tracking the pattern jury instruction:   The use of deadly force upon or toward another person is justified if the defendant reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against death or serious bodily injury or kidnapping. The reasonableness of the defendants’ belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as the defendant reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used.   The jury found Reis guilty as charged. He appealed.   The jury was incorrectly instructed that t...

The Internet Crimes Against Children Fee is Limited to Internet Crimes Against Children

State v. Nagamine (ICA February 26, 2025). Bryson Nagamine pleaded no contest to habitually operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. HRS § 291E-61.5. The circuit court—the Honorable Judge Kathleen Watanabe presiding—sentenced him to five years probation and imposed the Internet Crimes Against Children fee in the amount of $100.00 over his objection. Nagamine appealed. Limiting the ICAC fee to ICAC. The sentencing court “shall order every defendant to pay an internet crimes against children fee of up to $100 for each felony or misdemeanor conviction[.]” HRS § 846F-3. The ICA rejected the prosecution’s argument that this plain language requires a fee for every felony and misdemeanor conviction regardless of the crime.   The ICAC fee statute must be read with the definition of an ICAC. The ICAC is part of HRS Chapter 846F, entitled “Internet Crimes Against Children.” There is a special fund created to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute internet crim...

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...