Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — No. SCWC-16-345

No. SCWC-16-0000345, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXWELL F. JONES, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

The oral argument was livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s You Tube channel at

Attorney for Petitioner:
     Michael S. Zola

Attorney for Respondent:
     Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:  Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/06/19.

NOTE:  Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument from 01/09/20 to 03/12/20 at 8:45 a.m., filed 12/17/19.

NOTE:  Second amended notice of setting for oral argument due to rescheduling from 03/12/20 at 8:45 a.m. to 04/15/20 at 10:00 a.m., filed 02/03/20.

NOTE:  Third amended notice of setting for oral argument due to rescheduling from 04/15/20 at 10:00 a.m. to 05/26/20 at 10:00 a.m., filed 05/08/20.

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

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant Maxwell Jones was pulled over after running a red light and arrested on suspicion of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). After a trial, Jones was convicted of OVUII pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes 291E-61(a)(1). The testimony of a police officer furnished the basis for his conviction. The officer testified about his observations of Jones before, during, and after the arrest, Jones’s performance on three field sobriety tests, that Jones failed each field sobriety test, and his opinion as to Jones’s intoxication. Jones argues that the officer’s testimony should not have been admitted because the State did not lay sufficient foundation to allow the officer to testify as to whether Jones failed the field sobriety tests and whether Jones was intoxicated. He also claims that insufficient evidence supported his conviction.