Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 17 No. 04
• Publication year: 2013

CASE NOTES

Appeal Pointers

A statement of jurisdiction may be stricken unless a copy of the judgment or order appealed from is attached to it. HRAP 12.1(d).

Supreme Court

Criminal

State v. Spearman, SCWC-11-0000702, February 21, 2013 (McKenna, J.). At issue in this appeal was whether double jeopardy barred the re-prosecution of a defendant for violating Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-61 (operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant) following a judgment of acquittal on the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof (breath alcohol content) in an initial trial in which both Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3) methods of proof were tried. The Hawaii Supreme Court reaffirmed that a judgment of acquittal on the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof is "in form only," but that it serves as a factual finding that the State has not met its burden of proving the requisite breath alcohol content. Based on State v. Mundon, 129 Hawai'i 1, 292P.3d 205 (2012), the collateral estoppel principle embodied in the double jeopardy clause would prohibit the State from re-litigating breath alcohol content, whether in a re-prosecution of defendant on the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof, or as part of the State's evidence in a subsequent trial on the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(1) method of proof. The Court thus expressly overruled State v. Lemalu, 72 Haw. 130, 809 P.3d 442 (1991). The collateral estoppel principle would not, however, prohibit the State from re-charging the defendant on the Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61(a)(1) method of proof following a dismissal without prejudice based on the failure of the complaint to allege mens rea.

Intermediate Court of Appeals

Civil Procedure

Lahaina Fashions, Inc. v. Bank of Hawaii, No. 30644, February 21, 2013 (Reifurth, J.). After judgment in favor of Appellee, Appellant argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in (1) denying Appellant's motion to correct the verdict and enter a judgment and its motion to deny Appellee's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of...