STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BASIL WOODY Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

Listen to the audio recording

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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee BASIL WOODY:
Michael H. Schlueter, Jason R. Kwiat, Andrew M. Kennedy, Nicole K. Bowman and Eli N. Bowman of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford, due to a vacancy, filed 11/24/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/02/25.

NOTE: Oral Argument rescheduled from 01/27/26 to 03/31/26 at 9:00 AM.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Defendant Basil Woody was arrested and charged in the District Court of the Second Circuit (“district court”) with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant as a highly intoxicated driver. Woody filed a motion to suppress evidence from her warrantless seizure and arrest, which was initially scheduled to take place two weeks later, but was then continued for fifty-four days because Woody had not received discovery from the State of Hawaiʻi (“the State”). The State issued a subpoena to the arresting officer nine days before the reschedule hearing. The officer contacted the prosecutor four days before the hearing that he would be unable to appear at the hearing due to military reserve training. The State filed a motion to continue the hearing on Woody’s motion to suppress two days before the hearing based on its witness’s unavailability. The district court denied the motion to continue based on the State’s lack of due diligence and for a lack of good cause, and granted the motion to suppress after the State conceded it lacked a warrant and had no other available witnesses. The ICA reversed the district court’s denial of the State’s motion to continue, finding the State exercised “due diligence” in securing the presence of the witness.

The issues on certiorari are whether the ICA erred by reversing the district court’s conclusion that the State had not exercised due diligence and what standards should apply to a State’s motion to continue a defense motion to suppress.