Oral Arguments Schedule
No. SCWC-16-0000004, Thursday, August 8, 2019, 8:45 a.m.STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL LIMJUCO ABELLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom Attorney for petitioner: Dana S. Ishibashi Attorney for respondent: Chad M. Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/17/19. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ. Brief Description: Defendant Michael Limjuco Abella was charged with one count of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-701.5 (2014) (“intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] the death of another person”). After a jury trial, Abella was convicted of Manslaughter, in violation of HRS § 707-702(1)(a) (2014) (“recklessly caus[ing] the death of another person”). Abella was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twenty years. On appeal, Abella argued that the circuit court: (1) erred by not applying HRS § 327E-13 (2010) to his case; (2) plainly erred by not providing a jury instruction regarding intervening causation; and (3) erred by denying his motion for mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The ICA affirmed his conviction. See State v. Abella, 144 Hawai i 141 (App. 2019). On certiorari, Abella asks this court to determine whether the ICA erred in holding that: (1) HRS § 327E-12, regarding the withdrawal of health care, does not apply to criminal conduct which leads to the need for health care; (2) the decedent’s medical treatment and the removal of life support was not an intervening cause of death that warranted a jury instruction on intervening causation; and (3) Abella was not entitled to a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCAP-18-0000068 Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 8:45 a.m.LEONA KALIMA; DIANE BONER; RAYNETTE NALANI AH CHONG, special administrator of the estate of JOSEPH CHING, deceased; CAROLINE BRIGHT; DONNA KUEHU; IRENE CORDEIRO-VIERRA; and JAMES AKIONA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, vs. STATE OF HAWAIʻI; STATE OF HAWAIʻI DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS; STATE OF HAWAIʻI HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS TRUST INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS REVIEW PANEL; DAVID Y. IGE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom Carl M. Varady of Law Office of Carl M. Varady and Thomas R. Grande of Grande Law Offices Attorneys for defendants-appellants/cross-appellees State of Hawaiʻi, et al.: Clyde J. Wadsworth, Solicitor General; Kimberly T. Guidry, Robert T. Nakatsuji, and Kalikoʻonalani D. Fernandes, Deputy Solicitors General NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Sabrina S. McKenna, filed 01/25/19. NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Matthew J. Viola, in place of McKenna, J., recused, filed 01/29/19. NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 02/05/19. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Court Judge Viola, in place of McKenna, J., recused. Brief Description: This transfer case concerns the calculation of damage awards to beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust (“the trust”) who were injured as a result of the State of Hawaii’s (“the State”) breaches of the trust. Petitioners are beneficiaries of the trust whose time on the waiting list to receive homestead land was prolonged due to the State’s breaches of the trust. In Kalima v. State (Kalima I), 111 Hawaiʻi 84, 137 P.3d 990 (2006), this court held that Petitioners were permitted to file a complaint seeking individual damages under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 674. On remand, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“the circuit court”) first found the State liable for various breaches of the trust. It later adopted a fair market value based damages model to calculate the damages to be awarded to each waiting list beneficiary. Another trial was held to resolve methodological issues regarding the circuit court’s fair market value model. In 2018, the circuit court entered a final judgment. On appeal, the State contends that the circuit court erred in (1) establishing an overbroad subclass list; (2) finding that the State breached its trust duties by not recovering lands that were “withdrawn from the Trust prior to Statehood[;]” (3) adopting a damages model that is not connected to the breaches of trust that were found by the circuit court; (4) adopting a damages model that fails to limit recovery to “actual damages” as required by statute; (5) applying the Oʻahu fair market rental value model for residential leases to the entire State; (6) incorrectly determining that subclass members had no duty to mitigate damages until 1995; (7) incorrectly providing for temporary suspension of damages when claimants “deferred” from participation in a homestead offering; and (8) shifting the burden of proof to the State on essential elements of Petitioners’ case. On cross-appeal, Petitioners argue that the circuit court erred in (1) ruling that beneficiaries must prove out-of-pocket expenditures to recover individual damages; (2) ruling that a waiting list subclass member’s “deferred” status suspends their individual damages; (3) imposing a six-year delay before individual damages accrue; (4) not bringing damages to present value; and (5) adopting the “best fit” curve and reducing individual subclass damages. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCWC-16-0000604, Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 10 a.m.STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL GLENN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom Attorney for petitioner: Emmanuel G. Guerrero of the Law Offices of Emmanuel G. Guerrero, LLLC Attorney for respondent: Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/26/19. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ. Brief Description: In 2014, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Glenn (Glenn) was charged with one count of Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 707-716(1)(e). Early in the proceedings, questions were raised regarding Glenn’s fitness to proceed and penal responsibility. Accordingly, at the request of Glenn’s counsel, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) ordered Glenn to be evaluated by a panel of three mental health examiners. After two of the three examiners concluded that Glenn was unfit to proceed and lacked penal responsibility, the circuit court suspended the proceedings and committed Glenn to the care and custody of the Director of the Department of Health for treatment. After further evaluations and hearings, the circuit court determined that Glenn was fit to stand trial, despite mixed conclusions by his examiners. Prior to trial, Glenn told his examiners that he did not believe he was mentally ill and that he did not want to assert a defense based on lack of penal responsibility. Glenn thus asserted a theory of self-defense at trial, and was subsequently found guilty as charged. Glenn unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and on certiorari, now asks this court to review whether the circuit court plainly erred: (1) by failing to obtain a waiver from Glenn with regard to the assertion of a defense based on lack of penal responsibility; or (2) by failing to instruct the jury on the defense, sua sponte. |
Supreme Court |