Hawai'i Legal News

  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...

  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...

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...

  State v. Campbell (ICA September 19, 2024) Background. Corey Campbell was charged with assaulting a police officer in the first degree and two petty misdemeanors while she was on vacation from Massachusetts. She was arrested and detained because she could not afford to bail out. The court let her out on conditions of release and allowed her to “fly back home to Massachusetts and live in Massachusetts.” She went home. She made eleven appearances in court by zoom. Trial was not set for more than a year after the charges were brought.   In advance of her trial date, her court-appointed counsel (the public defender withdrew based on irreconcilable differences), filed a motion for the court to pay the expenses of returning to Hawai'i to attend her trial. The requested costs included airfare, lodging, and transportation. The court—with the Honorable Judge Kirstin M. Hamman—granted the motion and approved the order. Weeks later, it rescinded the order on the grounds that it ...

  State v. Wilbur-Delima (ICA July 29, 2024) Background. Kamalei Wilbur-Delima was charged with multiple offenses in three different felony cases. He was sentenced to probation but it was revoked. He also picked up another felony case. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced and resentenced to probation. The judgment of conviction and the resentencing orders with conditions was entered on April 26, 2017. Two months later, Wilbur-Delima entered the Hawai'i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Probation Program, a program on Oahu designed to give “swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions” for violations.   From 2017 through 2020, the prosecution filed motions when Wilbur-Delima violated the terms of his probation. The prosecution called these motions for “Modification” of the terms and conditions. Wilbur-Delima did not contest the violations and was sanctioned with a jail ranging from 3 to 41 days jail. It later changed the title to a motion to modify...

OVERRULED!   State v. Willis (ICA April 30, 2024) Background. Erik Willis was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree. This case goes back to 2020, when a 17-year-old girl was found on a Kahala Beach with stab wounds to her stomach. She survived. The police found surveillance footage showing that before she was found a “fair-skinned man, with dark curly hair, a blue disposable face mask, a clean white t-shirt, tan pants, and dark colored shoes with white striping on the side” was near the area. Footage from a bus showed the man getting on the bus and heading to the Kahala beach he got out off the bus approximately twenty minutes before the woman was found. More footage showed that at around the time the woman was found the man was running from the beach to a sink and appeared to “wash himself off.” At around 4 p.m., the man is seen with a soiled t-shirt sitting on the bus. HPD officer Matthew Motas watched the footage and identified the man as Willis.   ...

  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...