Oral Arguments Schedule
Accommodation for a Disability
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 email@example.com 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.
COVID-19 Protocols for In-Person Oral Arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court and Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Effective March 26, 2022
(supersedes the oral argument protocols made effective February 11, 2022)In-person oral arguments have resumed in the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals as of January 1, 2022. To ensure the continued safety of all participants, the following guidelines will be followed:
- Everyone entering Aliʻiolani to attend oral argument must adhere to the building entry and screening requirements, which includes symptom-free conditions (e.g., no fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, or other symptoms of respiratory illness) and no positive COVID-19 test result within 5 days of entry into the building. Additionally, everyone entering Aliʻiolani Hale will undergo a contactless temperature check at the time of entry. No one will be allowed into the building with a temperature over 100.4°F.
- Members of the public will be allowed to attend oral argument, subject to building entry and screening requirements and capacity restrictions.
- Everyone must wear a covering over their nose and mouth at all times except while actively drinking water, subject to the discretion of the presiding judge.
- Adherence to physical distancing will be enforced throughout the building, subject to the discretion of the presiding judge within the courtroom.
- Polycarbonate sheets have been constructed around the front and sides of counsel’s tables, around the front and sides of the bailiff and law clerk seating area, and may be used to cover the top surface of the podium.
- Air cleaners will operate throughout the courtroom.
- There will be enhanced cleaning of key surfaces throughout the courtroom.
No. SCWC-20-0000714, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 10 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GEORGE VAN BLYENBURG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.
Attorney for Petitioner:
Emmanuel G. Guerrero of the Law Offices of Emmanuel G. Guerrero, LLLC
Attorney for Respondent:
Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/04/22.
NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone oral argument from 04/26/22 to 06/02/22 at 10:00 a.m., filed 04/06/22.
NOTE: Second Amended Notice of Setting for Oral Argument due to rescheduling from 06/02/22 at 10:00 a.m. to 06/30/22 at 10:00 a.m., filed 04/27/22.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.
Brief Description: After a jury trial, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit convicted George Van Blyenburg of leaving the scene of an accident involving death or serious bodily injury in violation of HRS § 291C-12 (“count 1”) and negligent homicide in the second degree in violation of HRS § 707-703(1)(b) (“count 2”).
Before the judgment of conviction was entered by the circuit court, Van Blyenburg filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the indictment violated his constitutional due process right to be adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Van Blyenburg contended that count 1 was defective because it failed to provide notice of the attendant circumstances element of the offense, that the defendant “did not stop either at the accident scene or stop at the location closest to the accident scene and forthwith return thereto without obstructing traffic more than is necessary[,]” as provided in HRS § 291C-12. Van Blyenburg contended that count 2 was defective because it failed to provide notice as to the definition of “simple negligence,” an element of the crime of negligent homicide in the second degree.
The circuit court denied Van Blyenburg’s motion to dismiss, finding the indictment constitutionally sufficient, and entered the judgment of conviction, which the ICA then affirmed. On certiorari, Van Blyenburg relies on State v. Baker, 146 Hawaiʻi 299, 463 P.3d 956 (2020) and State v. Shaw, 150 Hawaiʻi 56, 297 P.3d 71 (2021) to assert that the circuit court and the ICA erred in finding the indictment sufficient.