Case Notes

• Publication year: 2017
• Citation: Vol. 21 No. 01

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

State v. Nilsawit, No. SCWC-15-0000372, November 10, 2016, (Pollack, J.). The issue in this case was the manner in which a district court's decision regarding a request for extended coverage can be appealed. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that where the request for extended coverage originates from a member of the media, review of a district court's decision regarding that request was limited to the procedure set forth in the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, Rule 5.1(f)(8). There is also no independent statutory authority that would allow the ICA to review the district court's decision.

Criminal

State v. Faamama, No. SCWC-14-0000061, November 14, 2016, (Recktenwald, C.J. with Crandall, J., dissenting). Appellant was charged with Theft in the First Degree. After a jury trial in the circuit court, he was found guilty as charged. In his appeal, Appellant argued, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of Theft in the Second Degree. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense. There was a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting Appellant of Theft in the First Degree and convicting him of Theft in the Second Degree, and this error was not harmless.

Crandall, J., in place of Wilson, J., recused, dissented because she believed that there was not a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting Appellant of Theft in the First Degree and convicting him of Theft in the Second Degree.

State v. Subia, No. SCWC-12-0000794, October 24, 2016, (Wilson, J.). Appellant was convicted of methamphetamine trafficking in the second degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 712-1240.8. The ICA's September 23, 2015 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its August 17, 2015 Memorandum Opinion, affirmed Appellant's conviction. On appeal, Appellant argued the ICA erred in holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a criminalist with HPD to testify that the results of the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR) conclusively established that the substances the police recovered from Appellant contained methamphetamine; and (2) Appellant's conviction was based on sufficient evidence. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded a proper foundation was not laid to introduce the FTIR test results and therefore, the criminalist should not have been permitted to testify regarding the FTIR test results. Further, there was a reasonable possibility that the admission of the test results contributed to Appellant's conviction.

State v. Gouveia, No. SCWC-14-0000358, October 25, 2016, (Recktenwald, C.J. with Nakayama, J., dissenting). This case required the Hawaii Supreme Court to determine whether the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial based on jurors' concerns about their safety. Defendant was...