COVID-19 & the COURTS: FOR UPDATES, CLICK HERE

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. SCAP-19-0000714, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 2 p.m. STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DAE HAN MOON, 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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts. Attorney for appellant Moon: Emmanuel G. Guerrero Attorney for appellee State: Chad M. Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 12/22/20. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ. Brief Description: This transfer case arises from Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Dae Han Moon’s conviction for second degree murder and related firearm offenses. Moon argues that the State of Hawaiʻi was required, and failed at trial, to prove that the decedent was pronounced dead in accordance with HRS § 327C-1. The circuit court found that the State did not have to adhere to the requirements set forth in HRS § 327C-1 to prove the element of “death” under the Hawaiʻi Penal Code. Moon contends, in relevant part, that the circuit court erred in concluding that HRS § 327C-1 does not apply to criminal actions.	Supreme Court
No. SCWC-19-0000841, Thursday, August 26, 2021, 2 p.m. E. KALANI FLORES, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SUSAN BALLARD, in her Capacity as Chief of Police of the City and County of Honolulu; PAUL FERREIRA, in his Capacity as the Chief of Police of the County of Hawaiʻi Police Department; TIVOLI FAAUMU, in his Capacity as Chief of Police of Maui County, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at: The oral argument will be held remotely and will be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts. Attorney for Petitioner Flores: Peter S.R. Olson of Olson & Sons Attorneys for Respondents Ballard, Ferreira, and Faaumu: Ernest H. Nomura, Robert M. Kohn, and Nicolette Winter, Deputies Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu; Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Corporation Counsel of the County of Maui; Laureen L. Martin, D. Kaena Horowitz, and Lerisa L. Heroldt, Deputies Corporation Counsel of the County of Hawaii NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/22/21. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ. Brief Description: In July 2019, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant E. Kalani Flores (Flores) and other protesters gathered on Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaiʻi to protest against the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). The chief of Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD), Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Paul Ferreira (Chief Ferreira) requested assistance from Respondents/ Defendants-Appellees Susan Ballard (Chief of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD)) (Chief Ballard) and Tivoli Faaumu (Chief of the Maui County Police Department (MPD)) (Chief Faaumu) to respond to the protesters. Chief Ferreira entered into written agreements with Chief Ballard and Chief Faaumu authorizing the temporary assignment of officers to HCPD and officers from HPD and MPD traveled to assist HCPD on Mauna Kea. The agreements stated that they were authorized by two different statutes: (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 78-27, which provides for the temporary assignment of government employees from one agency to another; and (2) HRS § 52D-5, which permits police officers to exercise police authority outside their home county only in the pursuit of an investigation commenced within their home jurisdiction and with the permission of the receiving county’s chief of police. Flores filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court) naming as defendants Chief Ballard, Chief Faaumu, and Chief Ferreira (collectively, “the Chiefs”) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In his complaint, Flores challenged the presence and legal authority of HPD and MPD officers within the County of Hawaiʻi, arguing that it was in violation of HRS § 52D-5 because the visiting officers were not on Mauna Kea in the pursuit of an investigation commenced within their home jurisdiction. The Chiefs moved to dismiss Flores’s complaint on the basis that HRS § 52D-5 does not create a private right of action for an individual to challenge an alleged violation of HRS § 52D-5. The circuit court granted the Chiefs’ motion to dismiss. Flores appealed to the ICA and the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s decision on different grounds. The ICA concluded that HRS § 52D-5 was not implicated by the assistance of HPD and MPD officers at Chief Ferreira’s request. The ICA held that the temporary assignment of HPD and MPD officers was authorized by HRS § 78-27 and that other statutes and the Hawaiʻi County Charter authorized Chief Ferreira, as Chief of HCPD, to delegate his police powers to the visiting officers. On certiorari, Flores asks whether the ICA gravely erred by (1) concluding that HRS § 52D-5 did not apply, even though the Chiefs initially claimed that they were acting pursuant to HRS § 52D-5; (2) concluding that the HPD and MPD officers were acting under Chief Ferreira’s authority, rather than the authority of their respective departments; and (3) failing to decide whether HRS § 52D-5 creates a private right of action.	Supreme Court

No. SCAP-19-0000714, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 2 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DAE HAN MOON, 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 livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for appellant Moon:

Emmanuel G. Guerrero

Attorney for appellee State:

Chad M. Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 12/22/20.

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

Brief Description:

This transfer case arises from Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Dae Han Moon’s conviction for second degree murder and related firearm offenses. Moon argues that the State of Hawaiʻi was required, and failed at trial, to prove that the decedent was pronounced dead in accordance with HRS § 327C-1. The circuit court found that the State did not have to adhere to the requirements set forth in HRS § 327C-1 to prove the element of “death” under the Hawaiʻi Penal Code. Moon contends, in relevant part, that the circuit court erred in concluding that HRS § 327C-1 does not apply to criminal actions.

Supreme Court

No. SCWC-19-0000841, Thursday, August 26, 2021, 2 p.m.

E. KALANI FLORES, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SUSAN BALLARD, in her Capacity as Chief of Police of the City and County of Honolulu; PAUL FERREIRA, in his Capacity as the Chief of Police of the County of Hawaiʻi Police Department; TIVOLI FAAUMU, in his Capacity as Chief of Police of Maui County, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner Flores:

Peter S.R. Olson of Olson & Sons

Attorneys for Respondents Ballard, Ferreira, and Faaumu:

Ernest H. Nomura, Robert M. Kohn, and Nicolette Winter, Deputies Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu; Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Corporation Counsel of the County of Maui; Laureen L. Martin, D. Kaena Horowitz, and Lerisa L. Heroldt, Deputies Corporation Counsel of the County of Hawaii

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/22/21.

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

Brief Description:

In July 2019, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant E. Kalani Flores (Flores) and other protesters gathered on Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaiʻi to protest against the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). The chief of Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD), Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Paul Ferreira (Chief Ferreira) requested assistance from Respondents/ Defendants-Appellees Susan Ballard (Chief of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD)) (Chief Ballard) and Tivoli Faaumu (Chief of the Maui County Police Department (MPD)) (Chief Faaumu) to respond to the protesters. Chief Ferreira entered into written agreements with Chief Ballard and Chief Faaumu authorizing the temporary assignment of officers to HCPD and officers from HPD and MPD traveled to assist HCPD on Mauna Kea. The agreements stated that they were authorized by two different statutes: (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 78-27, which provides for the temporary assignment of government employees from one agency to another; and (2) HRS § 52D-5, which permits police officers to exercise police authority outside their home county only in the pursuit of an investigation commenced within their home jurisdiction and with the permission of the receiving county’s chief of police.

Flores filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court) naming as defendants Chief Ballard, Chief Faaumu, and Chief Ferreira (collectively, “the Chiefs”) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In his complaint, Flores challenged the presence and legal authority of HPD and MPD officers within the County of Hawaiʻi, arguing that it was in violation of HRS § 52D-5 because the visiting officers were not on Mauna Kea in the pursuit of an investigation commenced within their home jurisdiction. The Chiefs moved to dismiss Flores’s complaint on the basis that HRS § 52D-5 does not create a private right of action for an individual to challenge an alleged violation of HRS § 52D-5. The circuit court granted the Chiefs’ motion to dismiss.

Flores appealed to the ICA and the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s decision on different grounds. The ICA concluded that HRS § 52D-5 was not implicated by the assistance of HPD and MPD officers at Chief Ferreira’s request. The ICA held that the temporary assignment of HPD and MPD officers was authorized by HRS § 78-27 and that other statutes and the Hawaiʻi County Charter authorized Chief Ferreira, as Chief of HCPD, to delegate his police powers to the visiting officers.

On certiorari, Flores asks whether the ICA gravely erred by (1) concluding that HRS § 52D-5 did not apply, even though the Chiefs initially claimed that they were acting pursuant to HRS § 52D-5; (2) concluding that the HPD and MPD officers were acting under Chief Ferreira’s authority, rather than the authority of their respective departments; and (3) failing to decide whether HRS § 52D-5 creates a private right of action.

Supreme
Court