Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ended on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — No. SCWC-16-0000004

No. SCWC-16-0000004, Thursday, August 8, 2019, 8:45 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL LIMJUCO ABELLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliiolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for petitioner:

Dana S. Ishibashi

Attorney for respondent:

Chad M. Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/17/19.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ]

Brief Description:

Defendant Michael Limjuco Abella was charged with one count of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-701.5 (2014) (“intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] the death of another person”). After a jury trial, Abella was convicted of Manslaughter, in violation of HRS § 707-702(1)(a) (2014) (“recklessly caus[ing] the death of another person”). Abella was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twenty years.

On appeal, Abella argued that the circuit court: (1) erred by not applying HRS § 327E-13 (2010) to his case; (2) plainly erred by not providing a jury instruction regarding intervening causation; and (3) erred by denying his motion for mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The ICA affirmed his conviction. See State v. Abella, 144 Hawai i 141 (App. 2019).

On certiorari, Abella asks this court to determine whether the ICA erred in holding that: (1) HRS § 327E-12, regarding the withdrawal of health care, does not apply to criminal conduct which leads to the need for health care; (2) the decedent’s medical treatment and the removal of life support was not an intervening cause of death that warranted a jury instruction on intervening causation; and (3) Abella was not entitled to a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

 

Chat

KolokoloChat

How can I help you today?

×