Moana v. Wong.
SCPW-17-0000532
| Haw. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Two defendants (Moana and Curioso) were held in custody after initial appearances and sought writs of mandamus to compel release under HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) because preliminary hearings did not commence within two days.
- Moana: charged by complaint for felony-level domestic abuse; preliminary hearing continued because the complaining witness did not appear; family court continued hearing and kept bail at $30,000; State later charged Moana by information.
- Curioso: charged by complaint with multiple offenses; preliminary hearing continued because the complainant needed a Tagalog interpreter; court continued hearing six days after initial appearance; State later obtained a grand jury indictment.
- HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) mandates release upon motion if an in-custody defendant is held more than two days without commencement of a preliminary hearing, subject to narrow exceptions: defendant-caused delay, compelling circumstance that precludes the hearing/probable-cause determination, or compelling circumstance making release against the interests of justice.
- The court denied the petitions as moot because the State later obtained an information or indictment, cutting off preliminary-hearing rights, but addressed the merits under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to provide guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) required release when preliminary hearing did not commence within two days | Petitioners: yes; no exception applied so release on own recognizance was mandatory | State: exceptions applied (compelling circumstances) so continued detention was justified | Rule creates a strong presumption of release after 2 days; continuance justified only for narrow, compelling circumstances that actually preclude the hearing or make release contrary to justice |
| What qualifies as a "compelling fact or circumstance" that precludes commencement or probable-cause determination | Petitioners: routine witness absence or administrative issues are not compelling | State: witness absence or lack of interpreter can be compelling | Compelling means grave enough to overcome the strong presumption of release; routine witness nonattendance ordinarily is not; interpreter unavailability can be compelling if due diligence shown and it actually prevents commencement |
| What showing must the State make to rely on a compelling circumstance | Petitioners: State must show specific, prompt steps and limited duration | State: general efforts and need for time to locate witness suffice | The State must show due diligence, specific steps to expeditiously resolve the issue, and seek only the time necessary; continuance must be narrowly tailored to the specific problem |
| Whether the court could decide petitions despite mootness | Petitioners sought relief; proceedings later supplanted by information/indictment | State argued cases were moot after charging instruments issued | Court denied relief as moot but proceeded to decide legal issues under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to give guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 734 P.2d 161 (recognition of prudential mootness principles)
- Tui, [citation="138 Hawai'i 462, 382 P.3d 274"] (application of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Chung v. Ogata (Ogata I), 53 Haw. 364, 493 P.2d 1342 (indictment cuts off preliminary hearing)
- Chung v. Ogata (Ogata II), 53 Haw. 395, 495 P.2d 26 (same principle applied)
- State v. Tominaga, 45 Haw. 604, 372 P.2d 356 (indictment supersedes preliminary hearing)
- Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 580 P.2d 49 ("compelling" standard in limiting presumptions)
- Enos v. Pac. Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., [citation="80 Hawai'i 345, 910 P.2d 116"] (de novo review of court-rule interpretation)
- Hutcheson, 352 S.E.2d 143 (contrast from other jurisdictions on remedies for missed preliminary hearings)