Judiciary systems including JEFS, eCourt Kokua, and Document Drop-off will be unavailable due to maintenance work beginning midnight Friday, September 23, to noon, Sunday, September 25. If work is completed sooner, systems may be restored earlier. Applications, including eReminder, eJuror, and eTraffic will not be affected. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–SCWC-16-0000630
No. SCWC-16-0000630, Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 11:15 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MATTHEW K. WILLIAMS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Eric A. Seitz, Della A. Belatti, Gina Szeto-Wong, Jonathan M.F. Loo, and Kevin A. Yolken of Eric A. Seitz, Attorney at Law, a Law Corporation
Attorney for Respondent:
Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 05/15/20.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Gary W.B. Chang, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 05/15/20.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/26/20.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Pollack, J., recused.
Following a jury trial, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Matthew Williams (“Williams”) was convicted of one count of sexual assault in the first degree and three counts of sexual assault in the third degree.
On certiorari, Williams contends, inter alia, that: (1) he was deprived of his right to present a complete defense when the circuit court limited the number and type of character witnesses Williams could present in his defense; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by failing to disclose exculpatory out-of-court statements prior to trial as required by Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 16(b)(1)(i); and (3) he was deprived of a fair trial when the court allowed State witnesses to testify to the undisclosed out-of-court statements.