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

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30683 Thursday, November 1, 2012, 9 a.m.

STACEY COSTALES, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. SCOTT ROSETE, in his official and individual capacity, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and MELVIN ANDO, in his official and individual capacity; GLENN YOSHIMOTO, in his official and individual capacity; STATE OF HAWAI`I; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; OFFICE OF YOUTH SERVICES, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

Attorneys for Petitioner Scott Rosete, in his individual capacity:

C. Bryant Fitzgerald and Deborah Day Emerson, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Petitioners Scott Rosete, in his official capacity; and Scott Ando, Glenn Yoshimoto, State of Hawaii, et al.:

Caron M. Inagaki and Kendall J. Moser, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Respondent Stacey Costales:

Sue V. Hansen and Charles W. Crumpton of Crumpton & Hansen

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari (as to application by Rosete, in his individual capacity), filed 09/21/12.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Scott Rosete, in his individual capacity, was civilly sued for sexually assaulting Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Stacey Costales while she was a minor ward of the Hawai`i Youth Correctional Facility. Also sued, primarily for negligence, were two of Rosete’s supervisors, in their individual and official capacities; the State of Hawai`i; Department of Human Services; and the Office of Youth Services. The jury (in an advisory capacity as to the State Defendants) found all of the defendants liable to Costales, but its answers on a special verdict form differed as to (1) each defendant’s percentage liability; and (2) the dollar amount each owed to Costales. As a result, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ordered a new trial for all of the defendants. Costales brought an interlocutory appeal of those orders. In its July 13, 2012 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its May 30, 2012 Memorandum Opinion, the ICA vacated a number of the circuit court’s orders and remanded this case for a new trial “limited to the allocation of fault and damages among the defendants.”

Rosete, in his individual capacity, timely filed an application for writ of certiorari, presenting the following questions:

1. Did the ICA err in holding that a trial court has no discretion to order an entirely new trial following a[n] irreconcilable conflict in a special verdict?

2. Did the ICA err in upholding the Circuit Court’s allowing evidence of prior and subsequent bad acts of co-defendants?

3. Did the ICA err in holding HRS § 662-10 did not preclude a contemporaneous judgment against both the State of Hawai‘i and Mr. Rosete in his individual capacity?