Showing posts from May, 2009

No Substantive Change in Proposed Action, no Supplemental EIS.

Overruled United Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu (ICA May 22, 2009) Background. In the 1980s Kuilima owned a resort on the north shore of Oahu. Kuilima proposed a project that would expand the existing hotel, build three new hotels, a golf course, condominiums, clubhouse, tennis courts, and an equestrian center. The project also included a number of public improvements like a wastewater treatment plant, new wells, and highway improvements. Kuilima submitted an environmental impact statement for the project in 1985, which included projected studies up to the year 2000. The EIS mentioned the impact on sea turtles, but did not mention any impact on the Hawaiian monk seal. Only certain aspects of the project was completed. In 2005 no major construction for the project had started. However, Kuilima submitted to the county's Department of Planning and Permitting an application for a subdivision for 744 acres of the 804-acre property. The DPP received tw

New Case, Same Standards, Same Holding

Sierra Club v. DOT (HSC May 13, 2009) Procedural Background.   After the HSC reversed the circuit court and held that the Act 2 of the special session was unconstitutional because it was a "special law" in violation of Hawai'i Constitution Art. XI § 5, the DOT filed a motion for reconsideration.   The Legislature also filed an amicus brief because it was concerned about the standards for determining "general laws" rather than unconstitutional special legislation. Reconsideration Denied, Act 2 is still Unconstitutional.   The HSC denied the DOT's motion for reconsideration.   It offered no analysis.   Along with denying reconsideration, the HSC made a few modifications and published a new opinion.   The changes appear to be slight.  A more complete analysis can be found here . Harmonizing Bulgo .   The first change was the two-step analysis in determining a "general law."   The HSC stated that "general laws" must apply " uni

Botched Evidence and Interpretation of the Self-Defense Statute Leads to Reversal of Murder Conviction

State v. Kekona (ICA May 11, 2009) Background.   Kekona was indicted for, among other things, attempted murder in the 2d degree against Ah Loo.   Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine that would prohibit any evidence that Ah Loo physically abused Kekona's girlfriend, Tammy Antonio, before the shooting.   The State argued that the evidence was irrelevant and that Kekona failed to provide adequate notice pursuant to HRE Rule 404(b).   The motion was granted to show Ah Loo's motive for ramming Antonio's car.   At the trial, the State presented evidence showing that when the police arrived at the scene--a parking lot in Waimalu--Antonio was frantic and told the police that Ah Loo was ramming her car and that she shot at him.   The police spoke with Ah Loo and saw that Ah Loo's windshield had a hole that looked like a bullet hole.   The police arrested Antonio and started looking for Kekona.   Days later, they found him, but there was no gun.   After the State

Murder, Media, Maugaotega, and the Rules of Professional Conduct

The HSC Affirmed This Case in a Published Opinion. State v. Mark (ICA May 8, 2009) Background. There was an arrest warrant out for Mark for allegedly shooting Paikai and firing shots at Piko. Police responded to a tip that Mark would be at the Baskin-Robbins in Kapolei. Officers responded. They were not in uniform. Officers Gaspar and Sung tried to arrest Mark, but there was a struggle. Mark fired three shots. Officer Gaspar was killed. Two indictments were returned against Mark. The first alleged, among other things, attempted murder in the 2d for Piko and Pakai. The second indictment alleged murder in the 1st for Officer Gaspar and attempted murder in the 1st for Officer Sung. Mark subpoenaed the records of certain police officers involved in the case. The circuit court granted the motion in part and allowed only certain documents to be disclosed. A jury found Mark guilty of murder in the 2d for Officer Gaspar and guilty of attempted murder in the 2d for

When the dog Bites . . .

State v. Bereday (ICA May 7, 2009) Background.   On May 8, Mariko Bereday went to the beach in Kahala with her Rottweiler.   Tomooka met Bereday.   Tomooka's son tried to pet the Rottweiler, but Bereday told him to stop.   The boy did.   Bereday tried to leave, but the Rottweiler would not move.   After several minutes, she got her dog to leave.   The Tomookas tried to leave the beach about fifteen minutes later but a Rottweiler came out of the bushes and attacked the Tomooka boy.   The boy rolled into the water and the dog followed him.   Bereday yelled at the Rottweiler, but it took a beachgoer to punch it four or five times in the face for it to let go.   The police responded and a witness said that a woman named "Mari" frequented the beach with an unleashed Rottweiler.   The police went to Bereday's house and saw a wet Rottweiler covered in sand running around the yard. On May 13, Hamataki took his two kids to the same beach.   Hamataki saw Bereday lying on