No. SCAP-23-0000460, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, 10 a.m.

ALVIN F. JARDINE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent-Appellee.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

The above-captioned case was set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument was also livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant ALVIN F. JARDINE, III:

Anthony P. Takitani, Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran, David M. Jorgensen, and Joseph L. Wildman of Takitani, Agaran, Jorgensen & Wildman, LLLP; Matson Kelley and Alex Wilkins of Kelley & Wilkins

Attorneys for Respondent-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

Kaliko‘onālani D. Fernandes, Solicitor General, and Ewan C. Rayner, Deputy Solicitor General

NOTE:  Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 10/26/23.

COURT:  Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

In 1992, Alvin F. Jardine, III, was sentenced to thirty-five years of imprisonment after a jury convicted him of ten felony counts, four of which were for Sexual Assault in the First Degree.  In 2010, Jardine filed a Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief seeking a new trial based on new DNA evidence.  The circuit court granted his petition, vacated his conviction, and ordered a new trial.  Later that year, the Maui Prosecuting Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

In 2021, Jardine filed a petition seeking compensation for his allegedly wrongful conviction under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 661B.  HRS § 661B-1(b) states that to present an actionable claim, a petitioner must allege “[t]he judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated because the petitioner was actually innocent of the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted, and the court decision so states[.]” 

Both Jardine and the State moved for summary judgment.  The circuit court ruled in favor of the State.  It concluded that Jardine’s petition failed to allege an actionable claim because he was not “conclusively excluded” as the perpetrator of the crimes and the 2011 vacatur order did not state Jardine was “actually innocent.”  Jardine appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and applied for transfer to this court, which we accepted.

Jardine argues that he is eligible for compensation under HRS § 661B because the vacatur of his conviction was based on evidence of his actual innocence and he meets the other statutory requirements.  The State argues that Jardine fails to demonstrate he has an actionable HRS § 661B claim because the vacatur of his conviction was not based on a finding equivalent to actual innocence.