State v. Abregano., 363 P.3d 838

Background

Scott A. Abregano was arrested Aug. 30, 2012 for violating a family-court protective order; he pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial.
HRPP Rule 48 requires trial within six months; the State and court set trial dates but Judge Castagnetti continued the case on Feb. 11, 2013 because she said she was ill, moving trial to March 11 (then trial began March 12).
Abregano filed a Rule 48 motion to dismiss before trial arguing the judge’s illness did not constitute "good cause" to exclude the one-month delay and that the court failed to show diligence in seeking a replacement judge.
The family court denied the motion, treating the judge’s illness as good cause and extending the Rule 48 deadline; the jury convicted Abregano and he appealed.
The ICA affirmed, relying on federal decisions treating a judge’s illness as excludable delay; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that a judge’s illness can constitute good cause for some delay but vacated the conviction because the record contained no evidence the court sought a replacement or otherwise justified excluding the full four‑week delay for this uncomplicated misdemeanor; remanded to let the family court decide dismissal with or without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial judge’s illness is "good cause" under HRPP Rule 48(c)(8) to exclude delay from the 6‑month speedy‑trial period	Illness is unforeseeable; some short delay may be excluded (State relied on institutional‑delay precedent)	Abregano: illness alone is not a catch‑all; must be unforeseen and substantial; court must show good cause	Court: Judge’s illness may justify some excluded time, but not unlimited; must be tied to facts and length of delay
Whether the court had duty to make record showing due diligence to find a replacement judge before excluding four weeks	State/ICA: no duty to show replacement efforts; institutional factors can justify short delay	Abregano: court must attempt reassignment and put efforts on record; otherwise exclusion is improper	Court: For a noncomplex misdemeanor, a four‑week exclusion without any record of efforts to reassign is not justified; court erred in denying Rule 48 motion
Whether the family court’s on‑the‑record comments to prosecutor/jury constituted improper comment on evidence	State: comments were facilitative; document was in evidence	Abregano: court’s statement that identity of protected persons was on Exhibit 1 amounted to judicial comment on evidence and risked bias	Court (majority): noted the comment risked improper comment and that such remarks can be reversible error; declined to order separate relief because Rule 48 disposition was dispositive and remand will address issues

Key Cases Cited

State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai‘i 507 (discusses standard of review for HRPP Rule 48 rulings)
State v. Gillis, 63 Hawai‘i 285 (Rule 48 good cause covers unanticipated circumstances; not to excuse prosecutorial lack of diligence)
State v. Senteno, 69 Hawai‘i 363 (good cause means a "substantial reason which affords legal excuse")
State v. Estencion, 63 Hawai‘i 264 (examples of delays not constituting good cause)
State v. Baron, 80 Hawai‘i 107 (court approved excluding time for "exceptional circumstances" where record explained shortage of judges)
United States v. Lane, 561 F.2d 1075 (2d Cir.) (judge illness and unavailability of replacement can justify limited exclusion)
United States v. Ferris, 751 F.2d 436 (1st Cir.) (a relatively short judge‑illness delay may be excludable)
State v. Guyton, 135 Hawai‘i 372 (clarifies requirement that restraining/protective orders be clear and unambiguous)
State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai‘i 38 (prohibits judicial comment on evidence; commentary explaining scope)