State v.

Fukuoka
 Criminal Cases
Some actions are prohibited by law
crimes
For: public safety, welfare, order

The Government has to enforce these

laws by prosecuting crimes
Formal process!
Investigation (by police, investigators)
Accusation (indictment or complaint)
Proof (trial)
Punishment (sentencing)
 Who is Involved
The Parties:
Prosecutors: Lawyers who represent the government and
work to enforce the law.
Defendant: The person accused of committing the crime.
Has right to represent themselves OR have an attorney

The Judge: The person who presides over the court,

decides any questions of law that might arise, and rules
on any motions that the parties bring up.
motions are formal, legal requests from the parties

The Jury: The people who consider the evidence and

decide whether or not the prosecution has met its burden.
In a bench trial, the judge performs this function, too.
No jury at evidentiary hearings or on appeal.
 The Process
Arrest
Criminal Complaint or Indictment
Motions
Discovery
Trial
Appeals

Today we are talking about an appeal.

The Hawaii Courts
 Appeals
The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA)
may overturn decisions of lower courts.
The ICA must hear all cases from the lower
courts.

The Supreme Court may overturn

decisions of the ICA.
The Supreme Court chooses whether or not
it will hear a case appealed from the ICA.
 Appeals
Only a final decision by the lower courts may be
appealed.
All the problems in the case must be resolved before
it can move up to a higher court.
Some motions may be appealed before the trial.

Most appeals are about errors of law in the

lower court, not errors of fact.
As cases move up, the problems to review become
more specific.
By the time it gets up to the Supreme Court, there
may only be one issue left, even in a complicated
case.
 Legal Questions
Two main kinds of questions have to be
answered during cases:

Questions of fact.
Who, what, when, where, why, how.

Questions of law.
What is the law?
How does the law apply to the facts in this case?

Appeals usually focus on questions of law.

 Legal Questions
Appeals courts answer questions of law by
looking at the record from the lower court.
The record of the case includes what people
have said and done in all the lower courts.

The higher court only reviews mistakes

by the lower court an appeal is not a
complete do-over in front of the
appellate court!
Attorneys just make arguments, they dont
get to call witnesses or show evidence.
 Legal Questions
When a higher court rules on a
question of law, lower courts must
follow that decision in future cases.

You will see the parties argue in front

of the Hawaii Supreme Court, the
highest court in Hawaii.
The Facts
 State v. Fukuoka
Defendant George Fukuoka

The State is accusing Fukuoka of 5 things:

Driving under the influence of alcohol
Recklessly causing damage while driving
Driving recklessly
Not stopping to give insurance information
after an accident
Not driving carefully
 Criminal Cases
Crimes are organized by type and severity
Infractions or Violations: no jail, only fines
Petty Misdemeanors: 30 days jail and/or $1000
Misdemeanors: 1 year jail and/or $2000
Felonies: more than 1 year jail
C: 5 years and/or $10,00
B: 10 years and/or $25,000
A: 20 years and/or $50,000
Murder: special kind of A felony

Additional fines may be imposed on most

crimes.
 Count 1 (PMD)
Operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.
[OVUII]
(a) A person commits [this offense] if the person operates or
assumes actual physical control of a vehicle:

(1) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to

impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for the
person and guard against casualty;
[and/or]
(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters
of breath . . .

[Penalty varies] First offense (w/in 5 yrs): 14 hr rehab program, 1 yr

license revocation, fees, and:
72 hrs community service and/or 2-5 days jail and/or fine of $150-$1000
HRS 291E-61(a)(1) and/or 291E-61(a)(3) and 291E-61(b)
 Count 2 (PMD)
Inattention to driving.
Whoever operates any vehicle negligently
as to cause a collision with, or injury or
damage to, as the case may be, any
person, vehicle or other property [has
committed this offense].

Penalty: up to $500 or up to 30 days jail, or

both, and an additional $100 fee may apply
HRS 291-12
 Count 3 (PMD)
Reckless driving of vehicle or riding of
animals; penalty.
Whoever operates any vehicle or rides any
animal recklessly in disregard of the safety of
persons or property is guilty of reckless driving
of vehicle or reckless riding of an animal, as
appropriate. . .

Penalty: up to $1,000 or up to 30 days jail, or

both.
HRS 291-2
 Count 4 (V/I)
Duty upon striking unattended vehicle or other
property.
The driver of any vehicle which collides with or is involved
in an accident . . . resulting in any damage to the other
vehicle or property shall immediately stop and . . .
[provide their] name, address, and the registration
number of the vehicle the driver is driving [to the owner
of the damaged vehicle or property] or shall [leave a note
with the aforementioned information] and shall without
unnecessary delay notify the nearest police office.

Penalty: up to $100, in addition to other penalties.

HRS 291C-15
 Count 5 (V/I)
Operation generally.
Every operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise
due care in the operation of such vehicle upon any
highway in order to avoid colliding with any
vehicle, pedestrian, other object, or embankment
on or off the roadway.
Maui County Code (MCC) 10.52.010

Penalty: . . . fine of not more than $100 for the first

offense, and not more than $250 for every
subsequent offense.
MCC 10.72.020
 State v. Fukuoka
September 28, 2014, around 3:10 a.m.:
Police arrest Fukuoka
Fukuoka posted bail and was released

October 22, 2014:

State filed a written complaint (5 counts)

October 28, 2014:

Fukuoka is arraigned and pleads not guilty
 State v. Fukuoka
November 25, 2014:
Fukuoka asks if he can send a subpoena duces
tecum to the Maui Police Department
(Wanted personnel and internal affairs files of 4
officers who might testify against him)
December 9, 2014:
Fukuoka serves two subpoenas
December 12, 2014:
Court allows Fukuoka to send the subpoenas
December 18, 2014:
Attorney for the County of Maui asked the court to
quash the subpoenas, on MPDs behalf
 State v. Fukuoka
December 23, 2014:
Hearing on the motion is delayed to January 27, 2015
Court later asked the County to file some responses to
the subpoenas under seal, for in camera review
January 27, 2015:
Court continued the case to February 10, 2015
February 10, 2015:
Court scheduled a status conference for February 20,
2015
February 20, 2015:
Fukuoka and the County agree to a protective order
regarding the personnel and internal affairs files
Court sets the trial date for March 24, 2015
 State v. Fukuoka
February 27, 2017:
Court moves the trial date to April 14, 2015
April 14, 2015:
Right before trial starts, Fukuoka filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint
Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice
April 28, 2015:
Fukuoka filed a motion for reconsideration
May 26, 2015
Court denied the motion for reconsideration
 Motion to Dismiss
Fukuoka argued that his case should
be thrown out because the
government was taking too long to
prosecute him!

His case was dismissed without

prejudice
Court says the prosecutors can try again,
but they have to start from the beginning
 Motion for Reconsideration
Fukuoka thinks that his case should
have been dismissed with prejudice
with prejudice means the government
cannot try to re-prosecute him
He wanted the court to reconsider its
ruling on the motion to dismiss

Court denied his motion to reconsider,

so the case remains dismissed without
prejudice
 Where are we now?
Fukuoka appealed the trial courts denial of
his motion for reconsideration to the ICA
Fukuoka thinks the trial court should have
reconsidered the motion
The ICA affirmed the lower courts decision,
and said the district court did not abuse its
discretion

Fukuoka is now appealing the ICA decision

to the Supreme Court
Legal Concepts
 Right to Speedy Trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial . . .
U.S. Const. amend. VI
Haw. Const. art. I, 14

What does speedy mean?

A week? A month? A year?
Is it different depending on the crime?
 HRPP Rule 48
(b)By court.Except in the case of traffic
offenses that are not punishable by
imprisonment, the court shall, on motion of the
defendant, dismiss the charge, with or without
prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not
commenced within 6 months:
(1)from the date of arrest if bail is set or
from the filing of the charge, whichever is
sooner, on any offense based on the same
conduct or arising from the same criminal
episode for which the arrest or charge was made
...
 HRPP Rule 48
When the defendant makes a motion,
the court must dismiss the case if
trial has not started within 6 months
of arrest OR charging (whichever is
sooner).
Some time periods are excluded
from the 6 month calculation!
Delay caused by the defendant, for
example.
 HRPP Rule 48
The court decides whether to
dismiss with prejudice or dismiss
without prejudice.
Entirely at the courts discretion.

How does the court decide that?

 State v. Estencion
State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625
P.2d 1004 (1981)
The court must consider:
(1) the seriousness of the offense,
(2) the facts and circumstances that led
to the dismissal, and
(3) the impact of reprosecution on the
administration of HRPP Rule 48 and on
the administration of justice.
 The Question on Appeal
Did the ICA correctly conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Fukuokas case without prejudice, based on
HRPP Rule 48 and the three-factor test
established in State v. Estencion?

(Did the ICA and the trial court apply the law
about speedy trial correctly to this case?)
(How would YOU apply Rule 48 and
Estencion?)
 Arguments: Fukuoka
Fukuoka says that his case should have
been dismissed with prejudice because:
(1) all of the charges against him were not
serious as they were petty misdemeanor
offenses;
(2) the court was responsible for most of the
delay, including the continuances granted after
the Countys Motion to Quash;
(3) Fukuoka had been prejudiced (harmed) by
the delay; and
(4) a reprosecution would frustrate the
administration of justice and HRPP Rule 48.
 Arguments: Fukuoka
District court applied the Estencion test wrong
His offenses were not serious
District court did not place enough weight on the
maximum penalties for his offenses
Speedy Trial Act (federal) is similar to Rule 48
It does not treat petty misdemeanors as serious

Fukuoka wants the Supreme Court to decide

that petty misdemeanors are not serious
offenses for Rule 48 purposes
 Arguments: State
State argues that Fukuoka did not
properly preserve his arguments on
appeal
He did not appeal the district courts
findings of fact and conclusions of law, just
the denial of his motion for reconsideration
District court applied the Estencion
factors correctly and petty
misdemeanors are not always
non-serious
 Arguments: State
Dismissal without prejudice was
proper because the State did not
delay the trial
Fukuoka, the County and the Court
delayed the proceedings through
subpoena hearings and continuances
Not the States fault that trial did not
happen within 6 months
 The Question on Appeal
Big Question:
Did the ICA make a mistake when it said the
trial court not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Fukuokas case without prejudice?

Did the ICA and the trial court correctly

apply Rule 48 and the Estencion factors to
this case?
How would YOU apply Rule 48 and
Estencion?
 Oral Arguments
You will hear arguments from both
parties, but the Supreme Court will
not make a decision right now.

The Court will issue a formal, written

document called an opinion.
That opinion will contain the Courts
decision and the rules that lower courts
must follow in the future.
Any questions?