Hawai'i Legal News

State v. Calaycay (HSC August 26, 2019) Background. Burt Calaycay was charged with the offense of harassment in violation of HRS § 711-1106(1)(f). At trial the complainant testified as the sole witness for the prosecution. She testified that in 2013 she was a 17-year-old cadet at Youth Challenge, an organization supervised by the National Guard to assist at-risk youth in obtaining a GED. She testified that Calaycay, an employee at Youth Challenge, approached her during her free time and he propositioned her for sex. She testified that he “wanted to get me wet and hit me from the back and have him ride him and that . . . his team had his back and that I wouldn’t get in trouble.” She testified that seven days later, Calaycay called her in the middle of the night to tell her how beautiful she was and that “he wanted to hook up with me and . . . wanted to see me naked.” This made the complainant feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Calaycay testified. After serving two tours in Iraq, Ca...

State v. Billam-Walker (ICA August 11, 2009) Background. Walker was charged with endangering the welfare of an incompetent person. HRS § 709-905. This was initially a summary disposition order. The ICA granted the state's motion for publication. The ICA presented no background facts. No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Continuance. The ICA rejected Walker's argument that the family court erred in denying his motion to continue trial. "An attorney cannot reasonably expect a court to alter its calendar, and disrupt a scheduled trial to which witnesses have been subpoenaed and to which the adverse party is ready, simply by the filing by counsel of a last minute motion for continuance." State v. Lee , 9 Haw. App. 600, 603-04, 856 P.2d 1279, 1281-82 (1993). Here, the ICA noted that the motion for continuance was requested one week prior to trial. According to the ICA, the defense had adequate time and resources to prepare for trial. The ICA also noted that ...

State v. Beltran (HSC November 16, 2007) Background. Beltran and her friends, Keawemauhili and Lucas, were cited for Camping w/o a permit in violation of Revised Ordinances of HNL, Ord. 10-1-3(a)(2). They appeared in district court and moved to dismiss on the grounds that the ord. was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The motions were denied and the parties pleaded no contest w/ the right to appeal the denial of their motions. The ICA vacated on the grounds that it was unclear whether the ord. was prosecuted as a strict liability offense and remanded. The HSC then took it up. Standing Schmanding. Beltran first argued that the overbroad definition of “camping” infringed on her DP right to privacy and freedom of movement. When alleging that a statute is overbroad, the challenger must be “directly affected by the claimed overbroad aspects” unless the statute affects the freedom of expression. As her expressive conduct is not at issue, she would have no standing to challenge the o...