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 Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

No. 30439  Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 10:00 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN GUNNER SCHULL, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant E. Gunner Schull

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney and Anne K. Clarkin, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City & County of Honolulu

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

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.

[Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format]

Brief Description:

Defendant-Appellant Edwin Gunner Schull, Jr., (Schull) was charged with being an owner of a dog that he permitted to become a stray, in violation of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) Section 7-4.2 (1990 & Supp. No. 12, 2-08).

After a bench trial, the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court) found that Schull had committed the charged offense. On appeal, Schull argues that: (1) the oral charge, which did not define the terms “owner” and “stray,” was deficient; (2) evidence of prior acts was improperly admitted for the purpose of proving Schull’s identity and that he was the owner or keeper of the dogs; (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he permitted the dogs to become strays; (4) ROH Section 7-4.2 is not a strict liability offense and requires proof of mens rea; and (5) the interpretation of ROH Section 7-4.2 as a strict liability offense renders the ordinance unconstitutionally broad and vague.

Chat

KolokoloChat

How can I help you today?

×