MARION EVERSON, JAMES DANNENBERG, BILLY SOUTHWOOD, VALERIE YAMADA SOUTHWOOD, DUANE PREBLE and SARAH PREBLE, Appellants-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAI`I, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAII EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND, and JAMES WILLIAMS, as the Administrator of the Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, Appellees-Appellants. (Agency Appeal))

Attorney(s) for Appellee-Appellant & Appellee-Cross-Appellant(s)
Honorable Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General, and Dorothy Sellers and Rebecca A. Copeland, Deputies Attorney General, State of Hawai`i

Attorney(s) for Appellants-Appellee(s)
Paul Alston, Eric G. Ferrer and Maren L. M. Calvert (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)

and

Charles K. Y. Khim

NOTE: Order assigning Judge Glenn Kim in place of Recktenwald, recused, filed 6/2/09.

NOTE: Order granting and accepting application for transfer, filed 6/10/09.

NOTE: Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument, filed 9/22/09.

COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA & JED, JJ. and Circuit Judge Glenn Kim in place of Recktenwald, recused.

Brief description

Appellee-Appellant, State of Hawai`;i, and Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Board of Trustees of the Hawai`i Employer-Union Health Benefits Fund (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (“circuit court’s”) August 18, 2008 final judgment in favor of Appellants-Appellees Marion Everson, James Dannenberg, Billy Southwood, Valerie Yamada Southwood, Duane Preble, and Sarah Preble (collectively, “Appellees”). On appeal, Appellants assert that the circuit court erred by concluding that (1) health benefit plans available to retired public employees from the Hawai`i Employer-Union Health Benefits Fund are constitutionally protected by Article XVI, Section 2 of the Hawai`i Constitution, and (2) Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 87A requires the EUTF to provide retirees with the same or similar health benefit plans as it provides to active employees.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTHUR VINHACA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. (Sexual Assault in the Third Degree)

Attorney(s) for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant(s)
William H. Jameson, Jr.

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee(s)
Honorable Shaylene C. L. Iseri-Carvalho, Prosecuting Attorney, and Tracy J. Murakami, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Kauai

COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA, JED & MER, JJ.

Brief description

On August 19, 2009, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Arthur Vinhaca (Petitioner) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari requesting that this court review the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (the ICA) in State v. Vinhaca, No. No. 28571 (App. April 29, 2009) affirming the April 30, 2007 judgment filed by the circuit court of the fifth circuit (the court) in this criminal sexual assault case.

In Petitioner’s Application, he argues that the ICA erred in concluding that (1) the admission of Petitioner’s younger daughter’s (Daughter 1) preliminary hearing testimony did not violate Petitioner’s right of confrontation where Daughter 1 did not appear at trial; (2) the court did not err in finding that Daughter 1 was unavailable; (3) Petitioner had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine his daughter at the preliminary hearing, thus satisfying the requirements of the confrontation clause; and (4) the deputy prosecuting attorney did not commit misconduct during closing argument when she argued that Petitioner’s older daughter, who did testify at Petitioner’s trial, sounded like the defense attorney in his opening statement.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TANYA RAPOZO, aka Tnaya Rapoza, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.
(Ownership or Possession Prohibited of Any Firearm or Ammunition by a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes)

Attorney(s) for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee(s)
Alvin Nishimura

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant(s)
Honorable Peter B. Carlisle, Prosecuting Attorney, and Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City & County of Honolulu

COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA, JED & MER, JJ.

Brief description

Petitioner Tanya Rapozo applied for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment entered by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) pursuant to the ICA’s April 20, 2009 memorandum opinion. The ICA’s judgment vacated the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s order granting Rapozo’s motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment against her as a de minimis infraction within the meaning of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) §702-236 (1993). Count I of the indictment charged Rapozo with Ownership or Possession Prohibited of Any Firearm or Ammunition By a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes in violation of HRS § 134-7(b) and (h) (Supp. 2007). On appeal, Rapozo asserts that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Count I as de minimis.

ALBERT PLEUS, et al., Appellants-Appellants, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et al., Appellees-Appellees.

Attorney(s) for Appellant-Appellant
J. Stephen Street and Reginauld T. Harris (Rush Moore, LLP)

Attorney(s) for Appellee-Appellee Henry Eng, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting for the City and County of Honolulu
Carrie K.S. Okinaga, Corporation Counsel and Duane W.H. Pang, Deputy Corporation Counsel

Attorney for Appellee-Appellee Thru, Inc. Hawai`i
Robert F. Miller

Attorney(s) for Appellee-Appellee Zoning Board of Appeals for the City and County of Honolulu
Carrie K.S. Okinaga, Corporation Counsel and Dawn D.M. Spurlin, Deputy Corporation Counsel

COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Foley and Leonard, JJ.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.

Brief description

Appellants-Appellants Albert Pleus, Pamela Pleus, James Growney, and Priscilla Growney (Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) in favor of Appellees-Appellees Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the City and County of Honolulu; Henry Eng, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) for the City and County of Honolulu; and THRU, Inc. Hawaii (THRU). THRU submitted an application to the City and County of Honolulu (City) for a Conditional Use Permit-Major (CUP-Major) that would allow THRU to operate a group living facility in a residential neighborhood. Appellants, who reside in the affected neighborhood, opposed THRU's application. Eng, in his capacity as the Director of the DPP for the City, approved THRU's application for the CUP-Major, subject to a number of conditions. Appellants appealed to the ZBA which affirmed the decision of the Director of the DPP. Appellants then appealed to the circuit court which affirmed the ZBA's decision but imposed additional conditions on the CUP-Major.

On appeal to this court, Appellants argue that the DPP erred in determining that THRU satisfied the following criteria required under the Honolulu Land Use Ordinance for granting a CUP-Major: 1) the subject use complies with residential development standards; 2) the site is suitable for the subject use considering location, topography, infrastructure, and natural features; 3) the proposed use will not alter the character of the neighborhood in a manner substantially limiting, impairing, or precluding the use of surrounding properties for the principal uses permitted; and 4) the facility will provide a service that will contribute to the general welfare of the community-at-large or surrounding neighborhood.

 

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT M. MANZANO-HILL, Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellant
Jay T. Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney and Kevin S. Hashizaki, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellee
John M. Tonaki, Public Defender and Jon N. Ikenaga, Deputy Public Defender

COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Fujise and Leonard, JJ.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.

Brief description

Defendant-Appellee Robert M. Manzano-Hill (Defendant) was charged with promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree after a search by airport security uncovered marijuana in his luggage. Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawa`i (State) appeals from the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of Defendant's luggage and his subsequent arrest. In support of its suppression order, the district court found that Defendant possessed a valid medical marijuana card when he was arrested for possession of marijuana within his luggage, while attempting to transport the marijuana through the airport. The district court concluded that 1) there is ambiguity in the Medical Use of Marijuana Statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 329, Part IX (Supp. 2008), regarding the definition of "medical use"; and 2) HRS § 329-122(c)(2), which imposes limitations on the "medical use" of marijuana, "should not apply when someone is transporting marijuana but only when someone is actually using it."

On appeal, the State argues that the district court erred in concluding that 1) there is ambiguity in the definition of "medical use" in the Medical Use of Marijuana Statute; and 2) the limitations set forth in HRS § 329-122(c)(2) should only apply when someone is actually using marijuana. Defendant argues, among other things, that the case should be remanded for a redetermination of the motion to suppress and for entry of proper findings of fact and conclusions of law because the district court's findings and conclusions do not establish a proper basis for the district court's suppression order.