Case Notes

• Publication year: 2020

CASE NOTES

Hawaii Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

McKenna v. Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani, No SCWC-16-0000284, June 25, 2020, (Nakayama, J.). This case arose from settlement negotiations between Appellant McKenna and Respondents/Defendants-Appellants Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani, Certified Management, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, and Ross Andaloro (collectively, "Defendants") relating to a dispute between the parties about water and mold damage to McKenna's condominium. At the close of an October 21, 2014 settlement conference, at which McKenna was represented by counsel, the circuit court and the parties acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement and went on the record to identify the "essential terms" of the agreement. Thereafter, McKenna refused to sign the settlement documents. On November 5, 2014, Respondents filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement ("Motion to Enforce") in the circuit court and attached a proposed written settlement agreement and stipulation. McKenna opposed the Motion to Enforce. After a November 24, 2014 hearing on the Motion to Enforce, McKenna filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. The circuit court denied McKenna's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and issued an order granting Defendants' Motion to Enforce. In its order, the circuit court found that the proposed written settlement agreement contained terms beyond those that had been agreed to at the settlement conference. The circuit court therefore struck those terms and created a revised settlement agreement. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement and as to which terms the parties agreed to at the settlement conference. As such, pursuant to the ICA's holding in Miller v. Manuel, 9 Haw. App. 56, 64, 828 P2d 286, 292 (App. 1991), the circuit court should have granted McKenna's motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve these issues. Instead, the circuit court revised the proposed settlement agreement itself before issuing an order enforcing the revised settlement agreement.

Criminal

State v. Alkire, No. SCWC-17-0000638, June 25, 2020, (McKenna, J., with Nakayama, J. dissenting as to Section IV.A., with whom Recktenwald, CJ., joins). This certiorari proceeding arose out of Lisa E. Alkire's ('Alkire") conviction for the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant ("OVUII") in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-61(a)(1) on Likelike Highway in the early morning hours of October 15, 2016. Alkire raised four questions in her application for writ of certiorari. The four questions raised on certiorari were: I. As a matter of first impression, did the ICA gravely err in finding that the Tachibana admonishment was sufficient where Petitioner was not informed of her right to testify in her consolidated suppression hearing without that testimony being used to determine guilt or innocence and/or where the court specifically declined to inform Petitioner of her right to remain silent? II. As a matter of first impression, did the ICA gravely err in rejecting Petitioner's Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 48 and/or constitutional speedy trial challenges, where the trial "commenced" with one state witness but was subsequently continued for eight months at no fault of Petitioner? III. Did the ICA gravely err in holding that Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 16 usurped United States Supreme Court precedent that requires individual prosecutors to obtain and disclose impeachment materials rather than merely relying on representations of the police to determine whether and what materials should be disclosed to Defendants? IV. Did the ICA gravely err in finding that discovery, requested for its potential exculpatory value, was not material because the evidence of guilt was "overwhelming" and/or in affirming the conviction where Ms. Alkire was deprived of an opportunity to establish an appropriate record as to the existence of the video? The first question on certiorari was resolved through the opinion in State v. Chang, 144 Hawaii 535, 445 P.3d 116 (2019). With respect to the second question on certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court adopted the California Supreme Court's reasoning in Rhinehart v. Municipal Court, 677 P2d 1206, 1211-12 (Cal. 1984), and held that, in order to effectuate its intent, Haw. R. of Penal P. Rule 48 required a "meaningful" commencement of trial. A trial is "meaningfully" commenced when a trial court reasonably commits its resources to the trial. As this is a "new rule,"...