No. SCWC-18-0000941, Thursday, September 26, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

WILLIAM FORESMAN, a single man, Respondent/Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, vs. JOHN FORESMAN, a single man, Petitioner/Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant.

[Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format]

The above-captioned case has been 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 will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner JOHN FORESMAN:
     Scot Stuart Brower

Attorney for Respondent WILLIAM FORESMAN:  
     Brandee J.K. Faria of Perkin & Faria and Sidney S. Royer of Leemon + Royer, PLLC

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/28/24.

NOTE:     Order granting motion to continue oral argument to a later date filed 07/24/24.

NOTE:     Amended Notice of Setting for Oral Argument, now rescheduled to 09/26/24 at 10:30 AM, filed 08/13/24.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal arises out of a 2016 civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), by Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee (Respondent) against his uncle, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant (Petitioner) for civil damages alleging that Petitioner sexually abused Respondent in 1975 and 1976 when Respondent was approximately 7 to 8 years old and Petitioner was approximately 15 to 16 years old.   Respondent filed suit pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-1.8 (2016), which established certain limitation periods for “[a] civil cause of action for the sexual abuse of a minor . . . based upon sexual acts that constituted or would have constituted a criminal offense under part V or VI of [HRS] chapter 707.”

     At trial, the Circuit Court instructed the jury on the elements of four different criminal offenses based on how those offenses appeared in the HRS at the time the lawsuit was brought.  Petitioner objected to the instructions, asserting they should be based on the law when the alleged offenses occurred.  The jury awarded Respondent general damages in the amount of $50,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $200,000, and the Circuit Court entered judgment accordingly.

     Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) asserting three central points of error: (1) the Circuit Court erred by improperly interpreting and applying HRS § 657-1.8 and instructing the jury on criminal laws in existence at the time the lawsuit was brought; (2) HRS § 657-1.8 is unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, and under the Hawai‘i Constitution; and (3) HRS § 657-1.8 is unconstitutional under the due process clauses of the United States and the Hawai‘i Constitutions.  The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court’s judgment.

     This court granted Petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari, which raises the same issues raised at the ICA.