Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 19 No. 08
• Publication year: 2015

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Arbitration

Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co, Inc., No. SCWC-12-0000819, June 3, 2015, (Nakayama, J.). In this appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed whether the plaintiffs, a group of individual condominium owners, could be compelled to arbitrate claims arising from financial problems at a Maui condominium project. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that because the condominium owners did not unambiguously assent to arbitration, the purported agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable. The Hawaii Supreme Court also addressed the doctrine of unconscionability.

Criminal

State v. Guyton, No. SCWC-13-0000203, June 8, 2015, (Pollack, J). This case presented the question of whether the phrase "residence, including yard and garage" in an injunction order encompassed the outer area of the protected person's 1,000-acre property, far removed from the vicinity of the person's home. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that it does not.

State v. Garcia, No. SCWC-13-0000059, June 15, 2015, (Recktenwald, C.J.). The central issue was whether the family court erred in denying Appellant's Motion to Withdraw his Plea of No Contest before sentencing. Appellant was charged with continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen, and abuse of a family or household member. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty, but changed his plea pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. Appellant agreed to plead no contest, and to serve twenty years of imprisonment for continuous sexual assault and one year for abuse, to run concurrently. In turn, the State agreed to remain silent at Appellant's minimum term hearing before the Hawaii Paroling Authority (HPA). The family court accepted the plea agreement, found Appellant guilty as charged, ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, and scheduled Appellant's sentencing hearing. Before sentencing, Appellant moved to withdraw his no contest plea, arguing that Prosecutor's submission of a letter with three exhibits constituted a breach of the plea agreement and was a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea because Prosecutor knew the letter and exhibits would be transmitted to the HPA. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that Appellant's motion should have been granted. Prosecutor's submission of the letter and exhibits, despite the plea agreement, was a fair and just reason for Appellant's withdrawal of his plea, and the State had not relied upon the guilty plea to its...