Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 07
• Publication year: 2018

Case notes

Page 22

Supreme Court

Criminal

State v. Ui, No. SCWC-15-0000402, May 16, 2018, (Pollack, J. with Nakayama, J. dissenting with whom Recktenwald, C.J., joins). The right to have all elements of a charged criminal offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the fundamental principles of our justice system. In State v. Murray, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a trial court must engage a defendant in an on-the-record colloquy to ensure that the defendant is intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily relinquishing this fundamental right before the court may accept the defendant's admission of an element of a crime. 116 Hawaii 3, 12, 169 P.3d 955, 964 (2007). The Hawaii Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Murray and declined to establish an exception to the colloquy requirement when a stipulation is based on trial strategy or time constraints.

Nakayama, J., joined by Recktenwald, C.J. agreed with the Majority's conclusion that State v. Won, 137 Hawaii 330, 372 P.3d 1065 (2015), provided no basis on which to vacate Ui's conviction. However, she wrote separately because she could not join the Majority's decision to sua sponte review this case for plain error based on the district court's failure to engage Ui in a Murray colloquy. Nakayama, J. continued to believe that the Hawaii Supreme Court should exercise sua sponte plain error review sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, State v. Miller, 122 Hawaii 92, 146, 223 P.3d 157, 211 (2010) (Nakayama, J., dissenting), because the facts of this case did not rise to that level.

Appeal Pointer

In cases where Rule 52(a) of Hawaii Family Court Rules (HFCR) requires the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the family court retains jurisdiction to enter the FOF/COL after a notice of appeal is filed. The parties to the appeal do not have to file a motion for remand in the appellate court. If the FOF/COL are not transmitted with the record on appeal, the family court can supplement the record on appeal pursuant to HRAP Rule 10(e)(2)(b). The parties to the appeal do not have to file a motion to supplement the record in the appellate court. All requests for relief related to the entry and filing of FOF/COL pursuant to HRFC Rule 52(a) should be directed to the family court.

State v. Underwood, No. SCWC-15-0000446, May 21, 2018, (Pollack, J.). This case concerned the propriety of remarks made by a prosecutor in closing argument suggesting that opposing counsel attempted to induce the complaining witness to give false testimony during cross-examination. There was no evidence in the record to support such an allegation, and the prosecutor's statements amounted to an unwarranted attack on the personal character of defense counsel and, by extension, the defendant. The trial court did not rectify the issue through an adequate curative instruction, and the evidence against the defendant was not so overwhelming that the Hawaii Supreme Court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation did not influence the...