Ronald T.Y. Moon

The case involved Laeroc Waikiki Parkside, LLC, the buyer of the Waikiki Parkside Hotel, suing the seller's individual agents (Bloom, Izutsu, and Nakamura) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and related claims arising from alleged undisclosed mold and maintenance problems in the hotel's air conditioning and water systems. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the agents on all counts in both the main complaint and third-party complaint. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agents were not parties to the purchase agreement, that a nonrecourse provision in the agreement shielded them from liability absent fraud or willful misconduct, and that the buyer had failed to produce evidence meeting the prima facie requirements for fraudulent inducement or other exempted claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Kalaola, the defendant was charged with one count of failure to disperse under HRS § 711-1102 after police responded to an unruly crowd at Aloha Tower Marketplace and ordered participants to leave. At trial, evidence was presented regarding the defendant's conduct on both the first and second floors, and the jury convicted him, but the ICA found error in the jury instructions and remanded for a new trial. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction based on the first-floor conduct but insufficient for the second floor. The court further concluded that the double jeopardy clause of the Hawaii Constitution does not bar retrial on the first-floor events because the jury had convicted the defendant and sufficient evidence supported that portion of the charge. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial limited to the first-floor allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Behrendt, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the third degree and unlawful imprisonment based on sexual conduct with a minor under 16 years old that occurred in Hawaii. The key issue on appeal was whether evidence of prior sexual contacts between the defendant and the minor in South Dakota was properly admitted at trial under Hawaii Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the circuit court did not err in admitting the evidence, as it was probative of the defendant's opportunity to commit the charged offenses without detection. The court further determined that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect, and it affirmed the convictions on the relevant counts.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Delos Santos, the defendant was convicted in family court of Abuse of Family or Household Members based on his girlfriend's statements to a responding police officer shortly after an alleged incident, which the trial court admitted as excited utterances under the hearsay exception. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the statements did not qualify as excited utterances. On certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the ICA erred in excluding the complainant's statement that "my boyfriend beat me up," as it met the excited utterance criteria given her emotional state and the timing, and that its admission did not violate the state confrontation clause because the complainant testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. The court therefore vacated the ICA judgment and remanded the case to the family court for a new trial, finding sufficient other evidence to support retrying the charge.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case concerned Paulette Kaleikini's challenge to the denial by the Department of Land and Natural Resources and Board of Land and Natural Resources of her request for a contested case hearing on a burial treatment plan approved by the Oahu Island Burial Council, which permitted the disinterment of Native Hawaiian remains at a private development site. The circuit court dismissed her agency appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals later dismissed the appeal as moot. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the appeal, though moot, qualified for the public interest exception to mootness and that the circuit court had erred in finding no jurisdiction. The court reasoned that a contested case hearing was required by law, would have determined the rights of specific parties, the denial constituted a final agency decision, Kaleikini had complied with agency rules, and she possessed standing based on her cultural and religious interests protected under the Hawaii constitution and administrative rules. The court vacated the ICA order and remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsenvironmentprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over an arbitrator's award of attorney's fees in a proceeding between Kona Village Realty and Sunstone Realty Partners. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals' judgment confirming the arbitration award and rejecting Sunstone's motion to vacate it. The court held that HRS § 658A-21(b) permits an arbitrator to award reasonable attorney's fees when authorized either by applicable law or by the parties' agreement. Here, the parties' arbitration agreement explicitly allowed the arbitrators to determine the amount of fees, overriding the 25% limitation that HRS § 607-14 imposes on court actions in assumpsit. The decision rested on the statute's plain language using the disjunctive “or,” the policy favoring party autonomy in arbitration, and the absence of any statutory cap on arbitration awards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Sean K. Hitchcock, a homeless individual who regularly camped at Keaau Beach Park under city-issued permits, being charged and convicted under Revised Ordinances of Honolulu § 10-1.2(a)(13) for illegal camping on a Wednesday evening when permits prohibited camping for park maintenance. The district court found him guilty after a bench trial based on officer testimony about the permit rules and Hitchcock's presence in a tent. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding there was insufficient evidence that Hitchcock camped at a park not designated as a campground. The court reasoned that the park was expressly designated for camping with facilities for that purpose, Hitchcock was in the designated area, and the Wednesday/Thursday restriction was merely a permit condition that did not alter the park's ongoing designation as a campground under the ordinance's plain terms.

criminal law

The case involved Tanya Rapozo, a convicted felon arrested for erratic driving, who was charged with violating Hawaii law prohibiting felons from possessing ammunition after a police matron found an operable .38 caliber bullet in her brassiere. Rapozo moved to dismiss the charge as a de minimis infraction under HRS § 702-236, submitting a declaration stating she intended to have the bullet made into a bracelet charm, and the trial court granted the motion. The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, and the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rapozo had not met her burden to present all relevant attendant circumstances showing the conduct was trivial or otherwise warranted dismissal under the statute, though she could renew the motion with a more developed record.

criminal lawguns

The case arose from a dispute over plans to develop a biodiesel production facility on Maui, where BlueEarth Biofuels alleged that Hawaiian Electric Company, Maui Electric Company, Aloha Petroleum, and an individual defendant breached nondisclosure agreements, a project agreement, and confidentiality agreements by secretly negotiating to exclude BlueEarth while misusing its confidential information and trade secrets; BlueEarth asserted claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, tortious interference, conversion, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The U.S. District Court certified four questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court concerning the scope of preemption under the Hawaii Uniform Trade Secrets Act (HUTSA), HRS § 482B-8. The court held that HUTSA displaces tort, restitutionary, and other non-contract claims that conflict with it by being based on the same facts as trade secret misappropriation, with complete displacement for such claims unless they allege independent wrongful conduct; only conflicting claims are preempted; and HUTSA also displaces claims involving misuse of confidential information even if it does not qualify as a statutory trade secret, without requiring a prior determination of trade secret status. The reasoning centered on the plain language of HRS § 482B-8, legislative intent to create uniform trade secret protections, and alignment with the majority approach in other jurisdictions interpreting similar uniform acts.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case centered on a dispute between Wai'ola Waters of Life Charter School, which purchased agricultural land for use as a farm and school campus, and the Ala Loop Community Association of neighboring homeowners over whether the school needed a special use permit under HRS chapter 205. The County of Hawaii filed for declaratory relief, and Ala Loop cross-claimed to enforce the permit requirement; the circuit court defaulted the school but denied fees, while the ICA held there was no private right of action. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that article XI, section 9 of the state constitution creates a private right of action to enforce chapter 205 claims against private parties and that the default should have been set aside, vacating the ICA and circuit court judgments and remanding the case.

environmentpropertyprocedure

In State v. Jing Hua Xiao, the defendant was charged with prostitution under HRS § 712-1200(1) after an undercover officer bought her drinks at a Honolulu club and she engaged in sexual conduct by rubbing against him while slow dancing. Following a bench trial, the district court convicted her, and the ICA affirmed. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Xiao engaged in sexual conduct for a fee, as the evidence showed no explicit or implicit agreement linking the drinks to the conduct and no statements confirming compensation for sexual acts.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Shane Mark, who faced two sets of criminal charges from separate 2003 incidents: a parking lot dispute over a defective camera that led to shots fired and convictions for attempted assault in the second degree, and an arrest attempt at an ice cream store where Mark fired shots resulting in an officer's death and convictions for second-degree murder and attempted assault in the first degree. Mark challenged his convictions on grounds including an erroneous jury instruction on the defense of others under HRS § 703-305, concurrent representation by the public defender creating a potential conflict, prejudicial publicity and prosecutorial misconduct, and extended-term sentencing procedures. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in full, holding that the jury instruction error was harmless because the record lacked evidence supporting justification in defense of others, that no actual conflict arose before the representation ended, and that no evidence supported claims of unfair trial. The court remanded the second case for resentencing, allowing the trial court to empanel a jury to determine extended-term factors under either a judicially amended statute or 2007 legislation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case In the Interest of N.C., a Minor, originated as a family court proceeding under FC-J No. 0063855 and reached the Hawaii Supreme Court on certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The court issued an order of correction to a dissenting opinion that had been filed on April 19, 2010. The sole change replaced the words “Amended Complaint” with “amended petition” on the fourth line from the bottom of page 5 so the text would accurately describe the underlying document. The clerk was directed to update the original opinion and notify publishing agencies of the correction.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the City and County of Honolulu should have required a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the proposed expansion of the Kuilima Resort at Turtle Bay, based on a 1985 EIS accepted under Hawaii's Environmental Policy Act. The circuit court and Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that no SEIS was needed because there was no substantial change in the project itself. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant administrative rules require an SEIS when significant changes in environmental impacts make the proposed action essentially different, and that the agency's decision was arbitrary because it failed to consider changes over twenty years in factors like traffic and protected species. The court vacated the judgments and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a contested divorce proceeding in which the family court denied the wife's motions to extend pretrial deadlines, citing her lack of consistent counsel, and later granted the husband's motion in limine to exclude any evidence she failed to timely produce. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the denial of extensions and the resulting evidence sanction, vacated portions of the divorce decree concerning alimony and property division, and provided additional analysis on the valuation of the husband's law practice and the validity of a premarital IRA agreement. The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed that the family court abused its discretion by refusing extensions and imposing the evidence bar, but held that the ICA erred by addressing the substantive issues based on speculative assumptions about evidence that might be offered on remand. Accordingly, the court vacated the ICA's discussion sections on the IRA agreement and law-practice valuation while affirming the remainder of the ICA's judgment.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a mother's motion for relief from a 2005 family court order terminating her parental rights over her child RGB, who had been placed in foster care in 2002 after being found in unsafe conditions. The mother claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in the termination proceedings and her appeal, filing the motion nearly two years later under Hawaii Family Court Rules Rule 60(b)(6), and also sought access to certain court records. The family court denied the motion and limited record access, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court did not abuse its discretion because the motion identified no specific errors by prior counsel, the long delay had negatively affected the child's stability and adoption prospects with her foster family, and limits on post-termination records were consistent with the child's best interests under state law.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Shitanishi, the defendant was convicted in district court of excessive speeding under HRS § 291C-105 after a police officer testified about a speed check performed on the officer's speedometer by an automotive shop. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Hawaii Supreme Court granted certiorari to address challenges to the admissibility of that testimony. The court held that the speed check evidence was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to lay the required foundation under precedents such as State v. Fitzwater, including details on how and when the check was performed and the qualifications of the person who performed it. Without the speed check evidence, the record lacked sufficient proof to support the excessive speeding conviction, so the court vacated the judgments below; however, it found adequate evidence from the defendant's own testimony and a passenger's observation to support the lesser non-criminal infraction of exceeding the speed limit under HRS § 291C-102 and remanded for entry of judgment on that violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by banquet servers employed at Four Seasons hotels in Hawaii, who alleged that the hotels violated HRS § 481B-14 by retaining a portion of mandatory service charges added to customer bills without clearly disclosing to customers that the charges were not fully distributed as tips or wages to employees. The case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court via a certified question from the U.S. District Court asking whether the employees had standing to sue for damages under HRS §§ 480-2(e) and 480-13 as "any persons" despite not pleading the existence of competition or its effects. The court answered that the employees qualify as "any persons" with standing to bring such a claim for a violation of the service charge statute, but held that their amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege the "nature of the competition" required to state a claim for damages under the unfair methods of competition provisions. The reasoning centered on statutory text defining eligible plaintiffs, combined with prior precedent interpreting HRS chapter 480 as requiring an antitrust-style allegation of competitive impact to reflect the laws' focus on preserving economic competition.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether retired Hawaii state and county employees are entitled to health benefits from the Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF) that match or approximate those provided to active employees, and whether such benefits are constitutionally protected. Retirees sued the State and EUTF Board, arguing that the Hawaii Constitution's non-impairment clause and HRS Chapter 87A required equivalent coverage; the circuit court agreed on both points. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed that retiree health benefits qualify as accrued benefits under article XVI, section 2 of the state constitution and thus cannot be diminished, but reversed the statutory holding. It reasoned that the 2001 legislative amendments to HRS Chapter 87A eliminated any prior requirement that retiree plans reasonably approximate active-employee benefits, leaving the EUTF Board discretion to set different coverage levels.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved Joseph Mattson, who was convicted after a jury trial of terroristic threatening in the first degree based on an altercation with his son. On appeal, Mattson argued that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly commented on his presence at trial to suggest he had tailored his testimony to match other evidence, violating his rights under the Hawaii Constitution. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that such comments do not violate article I, section 14 when they are grounded in specific evidence of inconsistencies from the trial record rather than generic accusations based solely on the defendant's attendance. The court adopted the reasoning of the dissent in Portuondo v. Agard and affirmed the conviction, concluding no plain error occurred in the absence of a jury instruction on the issue.

criminal lawprocedure