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

Hawaii Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Honolulu District Court buildings are closed today due to an area power outage. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Oral Arguments Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-11-0000540, Thursday, Nov. 29, 2012, 1:30 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARIANNE L. CODIAMAT, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.


Attorney for Petitioner:

Brandon H. Ito, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Respondent:

James S. Tabe, Deputy Public Defender

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, filed 10/22/12.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/plaintiff-appellant State of Hawai`i filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the August 30, 2012 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) filed pursuant to its July 31, 2012 Summary Disposition Order (SDO). The ICA affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s June 15, 2011 dismissal without prejudice of the State’s complaint against respondent/defendant-appellee Marianne L. Codiamat. The State charged Codiamat with Harassment, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(a). The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, because the complaint charged Codiamat using the disjunctive “or” instead of the conjunctive “and,” it failed to provide the defendant with proper notice.

In its application, the State presents the following questions:

A. Whether the ICA gravely erred by affirming the District Court of the First Circuit’s (“trial court’s”) June 15, 2011 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order (“Judgment”) that dismissed the State’s complaint without prejudice.

B. Whether the ICA’s decision is obviously inconsistent with prior decisions of the Hawai`i Supreme Court and federal decisions.

C. Whether existing Hawai`i precedent concerning pleading in either the conjunctive, disjunctive, or conjunctive/disjunctive should be re-examined and overturned.