Posts

Showing posts from May, 2016

Sometimes “Reasonable Removal” means no Removal at all.

State v. Bowman (HSC May 9, 2016) Background. One afternoon, Officer Romeo Fuiava was driving along the Hawaii Belt Road near Paauilo on the Big Island in the Hilo-bound direction. He saw a green flatbed truck driving in the opposite lane with containers filled with lettuce or cabbage. About half a mile down the road he saw cabbage or lettuce leaves on the highway and on the side of the road. There were no other vehicles with cabbage or lettuce. Officer Fuiava turned around, caught up with the truck and pulled him over. The driver was Max Bowman. Officer Fuiava cited Bowman with HRS § 291C-131, spilling a load on highways. Bowman went to trial in the district court. At trial, the prosecution called Officer Fuiava, who testified about his observations. Bowman, appearing pro se , testified to the court that he was a farmer carrying agricultural products from the field during harvesting. He admitted that at some point, the cabbage spilled onto the highway. “It was trimmings. I ac

Tightening the Reins on Expert Testimony

State v. Kony (HSC May 4, 2016) Background. Last Kony as indicted with various charges of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the third degree. The complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. The CW was living in the home and was fifteen years old. Kony was the boyfriend of the CW’s half-sister and father of two children in the home. Before trial, Kony moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Alexander Jay Bivens on the grounds that his testimony would be irrelevant and, if relevant, its probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in violation of HRE Rule 403. At the hearing on the motion, the prosecution responded that Dr. Bivens’ testimony was needed to explain to the jury why the CW’s reporting of the alleged assaults was delayed. The prosecution asserted that it would limit Dr. Bivens to the factors that would hypothetically lead to delayed reporting. The circuit court denied the motion and would all