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

Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ends on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.

No. SCWC-22-0000536, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 2 p.m.

No. SCWC-22-0000536, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 2 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WAISER WALTER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliiōlani 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 and Ōlelo Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant WAISER WALTER:
     Dwight C.H. Lum

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAII:
     Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/17/24.

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

Brief Description:

This case arises from a stabbing incident involving Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Waiser Walter on October 10, 2016.  Walter pursued a lack of penal responsibility defense and was examined by five medical examiners – three appointed by the circuit court and two retained by the State.  After the State’s examiners found Walter penally responsible, Walter asked his Deputy Public Defender to withdraw as counsel.  The circuit court denied the motion.  Walter then pleaded guilty to Murder in the Second Degree and Attempted Murder in the Second Degree.  Walter subsequently retained new counsel and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the circuit court denied.  Thereafter Walter was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.  The ICA affirmed Walter’s conviction.

On certiorari, Walter asks this court to vacate his conviction, arguing (1) the circuit court failed to engage in a colloquy with him at the hearing on his counsel’s motion to withdraw; (2) the circuit court should have recused itself due to a perceived conflict of interest; (3) Walter’s former counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the five-factor State v. Pedro analysis weighs in favor of allowing Walter to withdraw his guilty plea.