Skip to Content

Oral Arguments Schedule

If you need an accommodation for a disability when participating in a court program, service, or activity, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Supreme Court at phone number 539-4700 as far in advance as possible to allow time to provide an accommodation. You are also welcome to send an e-mail to adarequest@courts.hawaii.gov or complete the  Disability Accommodation Request Form. The Disability Accommodations Coordinator will try to provide, but cannot guarantee, the requested auxiliary aid, service, or accommodation.  

No. SCWC-16-0000460, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 2 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CYRINA HEWITT, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner:
Taryn R. Tomasa, Deputy Public Defender

Attorney for Respondent:
Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/02/21.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.

Brief Description:

At 1:00 a.m. on July 3, 2014, two police officers were dispatched to a hospital to contact a possible assault victim, later identified Cyrina L. Hewitt (“Hewitt”). Hewitt was lying disoriented and injured in a hospital bed. She slurred her speech and did not know where she was. The officers believed she was under the influence of alcohol or an intoxicant. Officer Nacino, who did the majority of the talking, questioned Hewitt about the alleged assault. At that point, paramedics walked by and when Officer Nacino informed them he was investigating whether Hewitt was an assault victim, they informed him they had seen a pickup truck in the bushes on the shoulder of a roadway.

Officer Nacino then called a sergeant to investigate the accident. The pickup truck had front-end damage and both airbags had been deployed. Inside it was a wallet containing Hewitt’s state identification card. The registered owner was a Cyrus Hewitt. The sergeant sent a picture of Hewitt’s state identification card to Officer Nacino via text message.

Officer Nacino then returned to Hewitt in the emergency room. He told Hewitt a pickup truck had been found and asked if she had been driving it. Hewitt responded in the affirmative. Officer Nacino then stopped asking questions and arrested her for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (“OVUII”).

The District Court of the Third District, Kona Division (“district court”) denied Hewitt’s motion to suppress her statements, made without Miranda warnings, concluding Hewitt was not subjected to “custodial interrogation.” The district court convicted Hewitt of OVUII and of driving without a license.

On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled the district court did not err by denying Hewitt’s motion to suppress statements. On certiorari, Hewitt argues the ICA erred in holding that Hewitt was not in custody while being questioned.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-20-0000067, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 2  p.m.

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICTORIA I. SATOAFAIGA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner:

Hayden Aluli

Attorney for Respondent:

Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/11/21.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.

Brief Description:

In December 2017, a grand jury indicted Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Victoria I. Satoafaiga (Satoafaiga) on four counts, including Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statute (HRS) § 707-730(1)(b) (Count Two) and Custodial Interference in the Second Degree in violation of HRS § 707- 727(1)(a) (Count Four). Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Satoafaiga pleaded no contest in Count Two, which was amended to Sexual Assault in the Fourth Degree in violation of HRS § 707-733(1)(a), and Count Four. She then moved for a deferred acceptance of her no contest (DANC) plea pursuant to HRS § 853-1; the State opposed the motion. After considering arguments by the parties and Satoafaiga’s pre-sentence investigation and report, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) denied Satoafaiga’s motion for a DANC plea, finding that Satoafaiga was “likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct” and that the “ends of justice and the welfare of society . . . require[d] that [Satoafaiga] presently suffer the penalty imposed by law,” the factors set forth in HRS § 853-1(a)(2)-(3). The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. On certiorari, Satoafaiga asks whether the ICA gravely erred in affirming the circuit court’s denial of her motion for a DANC plea. Satoafaiga contends that in denying her motion, the circuit court inappropriately considered certain information, such as uncharged conduct, and failed to consider all of the mitigating factors.

 

Supreme
Court