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

Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court of Hawaii–No. SCWC-13-0000636

No. SCWC-13-0000636, Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 8:45 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. QUINCY L.F. CHOY FOO, III, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner:
       James S. Tabe and Audrey L. Stanley, Deputy Public Defenders

Attorney for Respondent:
       Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/22/17.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

On February 22, 2012, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant the State of Hawai i (the State) charged Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Quincy L.F. Choy Foo, III (Choy Foo) with sexual assault in the fourth degree. Choy Foo made his initial appearance, without counsel, in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court) on March 15, 2012. The district court set Choy Foo’s jury waiver/demand hearing for April 5, 2012, and gave Choy Foo a referral for the Office of the Public Defender so that he could acquire representation. After a series of continuances, Choy Foo, now represented, demanded a jury trial and the case was transferred to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).

On March 11, 2013, Choy Foo filed a motion to dismiss charges for violation of Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48. Choy Foo contended that a total of 189 includable days had passed since the inception of the case, and that this exceeded the 180 day period mandated by HRPP Rule 48. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that the twenty-one day period was excludable pursuant to HRPP Rule 48 (c)(1) and (c)(8), vacated the circuit court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Choy Foo raises the following question in his application for writ of certiorari:

Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the twenty-one day period between Petitioner’s arraignment in District Court and the next hearing set sua sponte by the District Court to determine whether Petitioner would demand or waive his right to a jury trial was excludable under Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48(c)(1) and/or HRPP Rule 48(c)(8).