This case involved an appeal from a first-degree rape conviction under Hawaii law, where the defendant was accused of forcibly having sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim initially gave a police statement identifying the defendant only as holding her down during the assault by a co-defendant and made no mention of intercourse with him, but after undergoing hypnotherapy sessions, she testified before the grand jury and at trial that the defendant had raped her. The court reversed the conviction, holding that hypnotically refreshed testimony is unreliable and inadmissible per se when it concerns matters not recollected prior to hypnosis, though a witness may testify to pre-hypnosis recollections. The court declined to bar all testimony from a hypnotized victim or to dismiss the indictment outright. It adopted a rule allowing testimony only on matters shown to have been recalled before hypnosis.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from an order denying reconsideration of a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and purporting to allow an interlocutory appeal. The court found that neither the summary judgment order nor the reconsideration denial included the express determinations required under Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure or the findings needed under HRS § 641-1(b) for such an appeal to proceed. The court decided to issue guidelines requiring trial courts to carefully assess whether there is no just reason for delay before certifying a judgment under Rule 54(b), and to explain why an interlocutory appeal would more speedily resolve the litigation under the statute. The core reasoning was that the increasing appellate caseload requires strict limits on appeals from non-final orders to allow the courts to remain current.

procedure

This case involved a wrongful death suit by the estate and family of Tristan Nobriga, who died from mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos products while working at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard from 1941 to 1969. Multiple manufacturers were sued; most settled before trial, and the remaining defendants, Raybestos-Manhattan and Eagle-Picher, were found 20% and 13% liable respectively on both negligence and strict products liability theories, with total damages set at $564,055. The trial court applied the settlement releases under HRS § 663-14 by reducing the verdict by the greater of each settlement payment or the settling defendant's jury-allocated share, resulting in a judgment of only $11,973.15 against the two defendants. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the pretrial order striking Eagle-Picher's defense of compliance with government specifications on the strict liability claim, reversed the damages application, interpreted the statute to cover multiple releases, and remanded for entry of a judgment of $98,472.62 against the appellees.

torts & liabilityprocedure