Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
No. SCWC-10-0000037, Thursday, May 2, 2013, 10 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KEVIN ALEXANDER SCOTT, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant:
Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:
Linda L. Walton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/22/13.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, SSM, & RWP, JJ.
Petitioner/defendant-appellant Kevin Alexander Scott (Scott) timely filed an application for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the January 15, 2013 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeal (ICA) filed pursuant to its December 17, 2012 summary disposition order. On August 30, 2010, the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court) entered a Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (judgment), convicting Scott of assault in the second degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and terroristic threatening in the second degree. Scott appealed his conviction to the ICA, arguing that the circuit court erroneously denied his request for the transcripts of his co-defendant’s trial proceedings. The ICA rejected this argument and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
In his application to this court, Scott presents the following question: “Did the ICA err when it found that the [circuit court] did not err in denying the request of court-appointed counsel for transcripts?” Scott maintains that he was entitled to his co-defendant’s trial transcripts because they were necessary to mount an effective defense and because there was no adequate substitute for the transcripts as even Scott’s request for a video recording of his co-defendant’s trial proceedings was denied by the circuit court. In response, the State contends the following: (1) Scott did not adequately preserve this point of error on appeal; (2) Scott did not demonstrate that his co-defendant’s trial transcripts were necessary for his defense; and (3) Scott had access to alternatives devices that fulfilled the same function as his co-defendant’s trial transcripts.