Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 17 No. 03
• Publication year: 2013

CASE NOTES

Appeal Pointers

Any point raised on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings requires that the transcript be made part of the record. HRAP 10(b)(1). A transcript obtained during the course of the trial court proceeding for the personal use of the litigants is not made a part of the record. Therefore, a separate request for the transcript of a proceeding for the record on appeal must be filed with the clerk of the court. HRAP 10(b)(1). A file-marked copy of the request must be delivered or mailed to the reporter. HRAP 10(b)(1)(D). Unless the appellant is exempt from the transcript payment or deposit requirement or the reporter has waived such payment, the reporter need not commence preparation of the transcript until payment has been made. HRAP 10(b)(1)(C).

Supreme Court

Criminal

State v. Ngo, No. SCWC-11-0000049, January 4, 2013 (Acoba, J.). On appeal, the Petitioner presented the following questions: (1) whether the ICA's order affirming the Petitioner's conviction for the offense of Accidents Involving Death or Bodily Harm constituted an obvious inconsistency with State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawaii 48, 276 P.3d 617 (2012); and (2) whether the ICA gravely erred in concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion when it engaged in the prosecutorial questioning of a certain defense witness. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the indictment against the Petitioner failed to allege the requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 291C-14(a) and (b), prejudicing Petitioner.

State v. Kaulia, No. SCWC-11-0000089, January 4, 2013 (Pollack, J.). Petitioner was convicted of committing assault in the third degree in the course of a mutual affray. The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial based on: (1) the State did not lack for subject matter jurisdiction because the Sate's criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the state; Petitioner was not immune from the court's jurisdiction because he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii; (3) the crime that Petitioner was charged with carried a maximum sentence of one year in prison; therefore, Petitioner was entitled to the right to a jury trial, which he demanded but he did not have; and (4) the trial court did not inform Petitioner that by walking out on his trial, he would lose certain constitutional rights.

Intermediate Court of Appeals

Administrative

Fratinardo v. The Employees' Retirement System of the State of HI, No. CAAP-12-0000054, January 28, 2013 (Foley, J.). Petitioners were retired police officers who argued that the Employee Retirement System (ERS) improperly denied them higher retirement benefits by excluding the uniform, firearm, and car allowances from the calculation of their retirement benefits. The ERS Hearings Officer concluded that Petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the ICA agreed with the ERS. Given the ambiguity of the word "compensation", its history, the entire statutory scheme, and the ERS' longstanding interpretation and consistent practice, the ERS' interpretation was not palpably erroneous and was entitled to persuasive weight.

Arbitration

Association of Apartment Owners of the Waikoloa Beach Villas v. Sunstone Waikoloa, LLC, No. CAAP-11-00000998, January 29, 2013 (Foley, J.). This appeal arose out of a...