No. SCWC-11-0000661, Monday, April 7, 2014, 5:30 p.m. (Amended 03/13/14)

STATE OF HAWAI`ʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STANLEY K. HUIHUI, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

William Richardson School of Law
2515 Dole St.
Honolulu, HI 96822

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant:

Craig W. Jerome, Deputy Public Defender

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee: 

Linda L. Walton, Kimberly B. Taniyama and Jason R. Kwiat, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., filed 01/06/14.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto in place of Acoba, J., recused, filed 01/30/14.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/06/14.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, & RWP, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Sakamoto, in place of Acoba, J., recused.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]  

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Stanley K. Huihui, Jr. (Huihui) has applied for a writ of certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’s (ICA) November 1, 2013 Judgment on Appeal filed pursuant to its September 27, 2013 Summary Disposition Order.

This case arises from a violent altercation between Huihui and his former girlfriend. At a bench trial, the complaining witness (CW) testified that Huihui repeatedly struck her while they were driving in Huihui’s truck. Huihui, testifying in his own defense, claimed that the CW’s injuries all resulted from the fact that she opened the door to his moving truck and tried to throw herself out, perhaps as an attempted suicide. Huihui claims that he grabbed the CW by the hair to prevent her from falling out, and that the CW was injured when her body slammed into the side of his truck.

Huihui raises two points of error in his application. First, he argues that the Family Court of the Third Circuit (family court) abused its discretion when it precluded him from testifying about prior instances where the CW had threatened to harm herself. Second, he argues that the family court’s verdict was unconstitutionally based on its assumption that Huihui gave no statement to the police after he was arrested.