Moana v. Wong. Consolidated with Case No. SCPW-17-0000532.
SCPW-17-0000171
| Haw. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Two separate mandamus petitions (Moana and Curioso) sought release from custody under HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) because preliminary hearings did not commence within two days of initial appearance.
- Moana: arrested for assault/abuse-of-family; preliminary hearing scheduled within 2 days but complainant failed to appear; court continued hearing and kept bail at $30,000; State indicated complainant might have left jurisdiction.
- Curioso: charged with kidnapping, terroristic threatening, and enhanced family-abuse; complainant present but requested a Tagalog interpreter the morning of hearing; prosecutor requested continuance; court continued beyond two-day limit and denied release.
- After petitions were filed, the State charged Moana by information and secured a grand-jury indictment for Curioso, cutting off preliminary-hearing rights and rendering the petitions moot.
- The court invoked the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception and addressed the merits to provide guidance on when HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) exceptions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of mandamus petitions | Petitioners: relief warranted because hearings not commenced within 2 days | State: subsequent information/indictment removed need for preliminary hearing, making petitions moot | Court: petitions moot because indictment/information cut off preliminary-hearing rights, but exception for review applies (capable of repetition yet evading review) |
| Does HRPP 5(c)(3) mandate release after 2 days? | Petitioners: yes; court must release upon motion if no hearing begins within 2 days | State: release discretionary when exceptions apply (defendant-caused delay, consent, or compelling circumstances) | Court: strong presumption in favor of release; rule requires release on motion absent narrow exceptions |
| Meaning and scope of a "compelling fact or circumstance" that "precludes" hearing | Petitioners: State’s reasons (offense nature, history, witness absence) insufficient | State: witness absence or lack of interpreter can be compelling | Court: "compelling" means gravity sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of release; must actually preclude commencement or probable-cause determination; continuances limited to time needed to resolve that circumstance |
| Application to facts (witness absence; interpreter) | Moana: nonappearance of witness and alleged dangerousness not sufficient | Curioso: lack of interpreter justified continuance | Court: Moana — record did not show timely, circumscribed plan; asserted factors (offense/nature/history) do not alone qualify as compelling; Curioso — inability to obtain interpreter can be a compelling, precluding circumstance but court record lacked findings about due diligence and the continuance length was not narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 734 P.2d 161 (Haw. 1987) (describing prudential mootness principles)
- Chung v. Ogata, 53 Haw. 364, 493 P.2d 1342 (Haw. 1972) (indictment cuts off right to preliminary hearing)
- Tominaga, 45 Haw. 604, 372 P.2d 356 (Haw. 1962) (same principle on indictment ending preliminary hearing jurisdiction)
- Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 580 P.2d 49 (Haw. 1978) (use of "compelling circumstances" standard in limiting a strong presumption)
- State v. Tui, [citation="138 Hawai'i 462, 382 P.3d 274"] (Haw. 2016) (applying the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)