Hawai'i Legal News

State v. Roman (HSC September 11, 2008) Background. Roman lived with his girlfriend and her 17-year-old son. On Mother's Day Roman was making tacos for dinner and asked the boy to get up off the futon and grate some cheese. Roman told him that he was not doing it right and told him to back off. Roman left the house and when he came back he saw that the boy hadn't moved from his spot on the floor. Roman testified that he "kicked him in his okole." At that point, the boy stood up and stared at him with clenched fists. Roman asked him some questions, but the boy was nonresponsive. Roman slapped him a few times. The mother tried to intervene, but she was hit by Roman. She called the police. After a bench trial, the family court concluded that the parental-discipline defense did not apply. The ICA disagreed and found the family court in error, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Nakamura dissented. Once Raised, the Burden to Disprove the Pare...

Moyle v. Do Re Mi Karaoke (HSC September 4, 2008) Background. After a long night of drinking, Moyle went to Do Re Mi Karaoke and drank some more. At Do Re Mi, Moyle ran into Simi Tupuola, who beat him up outside after Do Re Mi closed. Moyle sued Do Re Mi for negligence. Two years into the litigation, Do Re Mi attempted to bring Tupuola into the lawsuit, but the circuit court denied its motion. A jury concluded that Moyle was 5 % liable, Tupuola 95%, and Do Re Mi and the various owners were not liable. The ICA affirmed . Moyle appealed. The Foreseeability Instructions were Prejudicially Misleading. The HSC first held that the jury instructions on foreseeability so prejudicially misleading that it arose to reversible error. A landowner generally does not have a duty to protect others from the criminal acts of a third party. Doe v. Grosvenor Properties (Hawaii) Ltd. , 73 Haw. 158, 162, 829 P.2d 512, 515 (1992). However, when the landowner and the injured party have a "s...

Kato v. Funari (HSC August 25, 2008) Background. Kato was in a car accident with Funari. Kato sued Funari claiming negligence. After a jury trial, the circuit court granted Kato's motion for directed verdict on the issue of fault. Without objection, the circuit court instructed the jury that any damages awarded were legally caused by Funari's negligence. On the special verdict form there were four questions. The first asked if Funari's negligence legally caused Kato's injuries. The jury answered yes. The second asked for Kato's "total damages." The jury totaled $59,536.55. The third asked if there were any injuries related to a pre-existing condition. Yes, answered the jury. The fourth asked that, if so, what percentage of Kato's injuries came from the pre-existing condition. The jury stated "90%." The circuit court reduced $59,536.55 by 90%. Kato appealed. Juries are Presumed to Follow Instructions. Determining the proper amount of damage...

State v. Heggland (HSC August 8, 2008) Background. Heggland pleaded guilty to two counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree (HRS § 712-1243(1)) and prohibited acts relating to drug paraphernalia (HRS § 329-43.5(a)), which allegedly took place on August 28, 2003. The State moved for a mandatory minimum sentence on the grounds that Heggland was a repeat offender based on a prior offense in Colorado. The State admitted into evidence a printout from a Colorado government webpage indicating that he was sentenced on November 14, 1997 to a five-year term of imprisonment and was on parole until November 2004. The parties stipulated to the existence of the Colorado conviction. The circuit court, however, concluded that the State did not present sufficient evidence of the prior conviction as there was no evidence showing Heggland was represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel in Colorado. The ICA vacated and remanded. Strictly Applying the Repeat Offender Statute to n...

State v. Souza (ICA August 7, 2008) Background. In 1999 and 2000 Souza demanded from his employer that nothing from his wages be withheld for federal and state taxes. In his state tax returns for those years, Souza claimed a refund, entered a zero on the line declaring his adjusted gross income, and reported negative taxable income. When Souza was told by an investigator from the Department of Taxation, Souza told him that he would file an amended tax return. He never did. Souza was indicted for two counts of willfully filing a false tax return (HRS § 231-36(a)) and two counts of second-degree theft by deception (HRS §§ 708-830(2) and 708-831(1)(b)). Souza represented himself at trial. The circuit court refused to admit into evidence a number of Souza's exhibits, including a memorandum he prepared in 1996 setting forth legal research and analysis on which Souza formed the belief that he was exempt from paying his taxes based on his wages. The circuit court did, however, al...

State v. Rippe (ICA July 31, 2008) Background. Police learned of a man in Waikiki taking a license plate. When they arrived at the scene, they encountered Rippe leaning over a BMW with a license plate in hand. An officer asked Rippe if the BMW was his, and Rippe said it was. The police suspected the BMW was stolen, and wanted to search the car for the VIN. It turned out that the BMW was in fact registered to him, but the license plate in question was not. Rippe was arrested for theft in the fourth degree. As the police searched the car for the VIN, they found a blue nylon bag underneath the driver's seat. They took it out of the car and asked Rippe if he would consent to a search of the bag. Rippe said it was not his bag. The police then searched it and found methamphetamine and related paraphernalia. They asked follow up questions about the BMW, and Rippe explained that plenty of people put stuff in his car. At the station, Rippe gave a statement after his Miranda war...

E & J Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of HNL (HSC July 29, 2008) Background. E & J Lounge applied for a liquor license with the Liquor Commission in HNL. The Commission held a preliminary hearing and determined to schedule a public hearing for the application. Three of the five commissioners appeared at the first public hearing, where it received testimony and evidence from neighbors. All five were at the continued hearing, but a different three presided over the third and final hearing. The Commission denied the application. E & J sought appealed to the circuit court pursuant to the Hawai'i Administrative Procedures Act (HRS chapter 91) on the grounds that the Commission violated various provisions of HAPA, including HRS § 91-11, which requires members who did not preside over all of the contested case to review the record before rendering a decision. The circuit court ruled that the public hearing was a "contested case" and that it had judicial r...