No. SCWC-23-0000388, Tuesday, April 8, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent and Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JONATHAN P. SPIES, Petitioner and Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorneys for Petitioner and Respondent/Defendant-Appellant JONATHAN P. SPIES:

     Michael H. Schlueter, Jason R. Kwiat, Andrew M. Kennedy, Nicole K. Bowman and Eli N. Bowman of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP

Attorneys for Respondent and Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Charles E. Murray III and Kauanoe A. Jackson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 01/08/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Dyan M. Medeiros, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 01/28/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/29/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/20/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Medeiros, in place of Devens, J., recused.

Brief Description:

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated Jonathan P. Spies’ conviction for Promotion of a Dangerous Drug in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1241(1)(a) because the State failed to establish sufficient foundation to qualify its expert for the admission of scientific test results confirming the composition and weight of substances recovered from Spies’ vehicle.  The ICA remanded the case for a new trial.

In his application for writ of certiorari, Spies raises multiple constitutional violations that he argues warrant the exclusion of incriminatory evidence on remand: (1) custodial interrogation in violation in Miranda; (2) prolonged detention; (3) warrantless seizure of his vehicle; (4) insufficient probable cause to support a search warrant of his person; (5) defective charging documents; (6) material omissions regarding qualification of canine used in sniff search; and (7) a warrantless, trespassory canine sniff search.  Spies also alleges (8) an alternate theory for insufficient foundation for the scientific test results, should the Hawai‘i Supreme Court overrule the ICA.

In its cross-application, the State presents a single question: did the ICA apply the incorrect evidentiary standard to qualify the State’s expert witness for purposes of laying a foundation for the admission of the scientific test results.