*Disclaimer* - the below case summaries are not to be construed as legal advice, they are non exhaustive, and they contain only my own summary/interpretation of the cases so noted.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS:

NO. CAAP-18-0000620; STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUAMANU, Defendant-Appellant

(summary disposition order)

Background: Appellant was charged with 2nd degree murder; following a jury trial he was convicted of lesser included offenses.

Errors Alleged:

Whether the Court erred where it precluded Appellant from cross-examining the State's witness regarding the witness' pending criminal charges because the charges were not for crimes involving dishonesty.
Whether the jury instructions regarding self defense were insufficient as they did not require the jury to find use deadly force unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether there was insufficient evidence to find that Appellant stabbed the complaining witness where there was not direct evidence of the stabbing.

ICA Holding:

Cross-examination Issue - Error: the ICA found that the Court erred by precluding the cross examination. The witness had pled no contest and was sentenced to probation prior to trial.
- The ICA Stated: "Under these circumstances, information about [the witness'] probation status could have served as a basis for the jury to conclude that [the witness] was biased or had motivation to testify in favor of the State… [w]ithout allowing such cross-examination, the jury did not have "sufficient information from which to make an informed appraisal of the witness's motives and bias." (citing Levell, 128 Hawaii at 40, 282 P.3d at 582.)"
Jury Instruction Issue - No Error: the ICA noted that Appellant was convicted of manslaughter which required the jury to "find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] knew there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct could cause the decedent's death and that [Appellant] consciously disregarded that risk." (citing State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawaii 432, 450 n.33, 279 P.3d 1237, 1255 n.33 (2012). Therefore, the manslaughter conviction established that "the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used deadly force."
Sufficiency of the Evidence Issue - No Error: The ICA found that the "circumstantial evidence [was] of sufficient quality and probative value to enable the jury to make reasonable inferences in determining that [Appellant] recklessly caused the death of the decedent.

NO. CAAP-19-0000349; STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KANAKAOLE, Defendant-Appellant

(summary disposition order)

Background:

"Following a bench trial, [Appellant] was convicted of one count of Terroristic Threatening in the Second Degree (TT2)."
[Appellant was] alleged to have told Complainant during the altercation that if his wife were there, or found out that Complainant had gotten rid of his glasses, his wife would shoot or kill Complainant.

Error Alleged: "[Appellant] contend[ed] that the District Court wrongly convicted him based on insufficient evidence that he made a "true threat."

ICA Holding re True Threat - Error:

Rule: "the "true threat" [must be] "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution."" (citing State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 862 P.2d 1063 (1993)).
Insufficient Evidence: "we cannot conclude that either variation of the alleged threat was "objectively capable of inducing a reasonable fear of bodily injury in the person at whom the threat was directed and who was aware of the circumstances under which the remarks were uttered."" (citing Valdivia, 95 Hawaii at 476, 24 P.3d 672).

NO. CAAP-19-0000319; STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID, Defendant-Appellant

Background: Appellant was found guilty of manslaughter. He sought to have the complaining witness' Blood Alcohol Concentration admitted, but the Court only allowed testimony as to the "presence of alcohol" in the complaining witness' blood, but not testimony as to the actual blood alcohol concentration because no witness could testify as to what the blood alcohol concentration number actually meant.

Holding - No Error: "[E]xcluding the evidence of [the complaining witness'] blood-alcohol concentration level did not clearly exceed the bounds of reason or disregard rules or principles of law and was not substantially detrimental to [Appellant]'s defense. We thus conclude that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of [the] blood-alcohol concentration level without an expert witness." (emphasis added).

NO. CAAP-19-0000583; IN THE INTEREST OF GH

Background: The family court adjudicated Minor a law violator as to one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree (Sex Assault 1), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(1)(b)2, and two counts of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree (Sex Assault 3), in violation of HRS § 707-732(1)(b)3.

Error Alleged:

Did lower court err by excluding Evidence of CW's alleged past sex assault allegations as they were inadmissible under HRE Rule 412?
Does Rule 412 Conflict with the general Rule 613 Balancing Test?

Rules:

HRE 412: limits use of past sex allegations against CW, but Subsection "C" allows for a preliminary hearing on the issue.
Rule re conflicting statutes: "Where a plainly irreconcilable conflict exists between a law of general application and a law of specific application concerning the same subject matter, the specific authority will be favored." State v. Wallace, 71 Haw. 591, 594, 801 P.2d 27, 29 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Greyson, 70 Haw. 227, 235, 768 P.2d 759, 763-64 (1989)).

Holding Re Rule 412 - the Minor Did Not Meet the Procedural Requirements of HRE Rule 412: "[A]s Minor conceded at trial, he did not provide written notice that he intended to introduce the evidence fifteen days prior to trial, as required by HRE Rule 412(c)(1) [and] Minor has not argued that an exception to the written notice requirement applied.

Holding re the alleged Conflict Between the Rules: HRE Rule 412 is a law of specific application, whereas HRE Rule 613 is a law of general application, therefore any alleged conflict is weighed in favor of Rule 412.

SUPREME COURT:

SCWC-14-0000844; STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KAPAHUKULA KALE VOORHEES, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

(summary disposition order)

Error Alleged: whether Petitioner's jury trial waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Ernes Rule:

Court's Duty: "[C]ourts have a “serious and weighty responsibility” to “ensur[e] that [a defendant’s] jury trial waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,” and that therefore “the record must reflect a colloquy establishing a true understanding based on a totality of circumstances of the particular case.”" (citing Ernes, 147 Hawai‘i at 323, 326, 465 P.3d at 770, 773).
True Colloquy: "In other words, the court must conduct a “true colloquy” — a “discussion and exchange between the trial court and the defendant sufficient for an ascertainment based on the record that the defendant fully comprehended the constitutional rights being waived.”" (citing Ernes at 324, 465 P.3d at 771).

Holding:

Error - Not Knowing/Voluntary/Intelligent: "it cannot be said that [Petitioner's] jury trial waiver was established as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary [where the] court did not conduct any inquiry into [Petitioner's] background [and where the ]court’s yes or no questions […] centered around confirming [Petitioner's] signature and initials on the waiver form [rather than] his understanding of the constitutional right to a jury trial."
Counsel Representation Not Enough: "although the record indicates that [Petitioner] was represented by counsel and that his attorney explained the jury trial waiver form to him, this is not enough to outweigh the lack of “discussion and exchange” establishing [Petitioner's] actual understanding of a jury trial."