Edward Armstrong Towse

This case involved three defendants convicted in the Fifth Circuit Court of conspiracy in the first degree for operating a rigged gambling scheme to defraud a victim, Souza, of over $7,500 through a fake even-odd die game. The indictment originally included counts for obtaining money by confidence game and false pretenses, but only the conspiracy count proceeded to trial. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the conspiracy extended beyond the initial game because evidence showed plans for a follow-up fraud, making post-game statements and acts by co-conspirators admissible against all defendants. The court reasoned that whether the conspiracy had terminated and its existence were factual questions properly resolved by the jury, whose verdict was supported by the record including prior similar attempts and assurances of future games.

criminal law

The Public Utilities Commission sought to enjoin operators from providing daily passenger vehicle service between Honolulu and Aiea without a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The trial court issued a partial injunction covering only intermediate stops, but the Commission appealed. The appellate court held that the operators' fixed-route service did not qualify for the statutory taxicab exemption because passengers lacked control over boarding and disembarking points, as required by the plain language of the definition in section 4701, and therefore the entire operation should have been enjoined.

business & regulatory

This case was an appeal from a conviction for engaging in prostitution under Hawaii law, challenging whether the trial court had jurisdiction because the written complaint may not have been properly subscribed under oath by the complainant. The defendant argued that the deputy's testimony about pre-complaint discussions was inadmissible hearsay and that statutory requirements for a sworn complaint were not met, depriving the court of authority over the person and cause. The court ruled that the testimony was admissible as circumstantial evidence of the complainant's understanding and knowledge rather than for its assertive content, and that a validly served written charge provided sufficient basis for jurisdiction in both district court and on de novo appeal. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Harriet Bouslog. The opinion concurs with the majority's statements of legal principles and with the voluntary withdrawal of one justice from the matter. It further concludes that a second justice should also recuse himself voluntarily to eliminate any possible appearance of partiality or impropriety. The reasoning rests on the need to ensure the fullest impartial consideration for the respondent, consistent with fundamental standards of fairness and justice, as indicated by the record, exhibits, and affidavits.

procedure

The case involved personal injury claims by Clarence and Frances Seong against Trans-Pacific Airlines after Mrs. Seong was injured as a passenger when she allegedly fell against a metal clasp on her seat. The airline's defense relied on tariff regulations requiring written notice of claims within 30 days and commencement of suit within one year, which it argued were binding via the ticket's notation and federal rules under the Civil Aeronautics Act. The trial court ruled that these tariff limitations were superseded by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and that the ticket notation did not create a binding contractual modification, but it denied a jury trial on the remaining issues of negligence and contributory negligence after consolidating the cases. The Supreme Court held that the limitations question was properly decided as a matter of law by the judge due to undisputed facts, but the plaintiffs had not waived their jury demand on the merits, making the denial of a jury trial reversible error. The judgment was reversed and the cases remanded for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved an interlocutory appeal by the Territory of Hawaii from a trial court order denying its motion for a mental examination of a defendant indicted for first-degree murder. The trial court had refused the examination under Revised Laws of Hawaii section 10826 on the ground that it would violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the statute vests absolute discretion in the trial judge to order such an examination and that the record contained no facts showing an abuse of that discretion. The court declined to address the statute's constitutionality because no constitutional right had been infringed.

criminal lawprocedure