State v. Hern
133 Haw. 59
| Haw. App. | 2013Background
- District Court dismissed charges against Hern and Ledbetter without prejudice for HRPP Rule 48 speed-try violations.
- Defendants appeal arguing dismissal should be with prejudice and that the court failed to provide adequate findings.
- Hawai'i Supreme Court in Estencion requires trial courts to consider three factors in Rule 48(b) dismissals and to show the effect of those factors on the decision.
- Estencion factors: (1) seriousness of the offense, (2) facts/circumstances leading to dismissal, (3) impact of reprosecution on administration of justice.
- In Hern, the court relied on a 'typical practice' rather than Estencion factors; in Ledbetter, no reasons were given for dismissal and record is incomplete.
- Court vacates the judgments and remands with instructions to consider Estencion factors and to make explicit findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must Estencion factors be considered under HRPP Rule 48(b)? | State Advocates factors apply to Rule 48(b). | Defendants argue no required factors beyond Rule 48(b). | Yes; Estencion factors must be considered. |
| Must the court articulate the effect of Estencion factors on its decision? | State contends findings must reflect factor effects for review. | Defendants contend the court's discretion is sufficient without detailed articulation. | Yes; findings must clearly articulate the effect of Estencion factors. |
| Is remand appropriate when findings are deficient or record incomplete? | State argues record supports review or remand for proper findings. | Defendants contend direct review is possible if record adequate. | Remand appropriate where record is deficient or factors not adequately considered. |
| Did the district court err in Hern by relying on a 'typical practice' instead of Estencion factors? | State contends discretion must be case-specific via Estencion factors. | Hern argues no error beyond standard practice. | District Court erred; failed to consider Estencion factors. |
| Is Ledbetter's dismissal reviewable given the record deficiencies? | State seeks meaningful review of discretion. | Ledbetter lacks adequate record for review. | Record inadequate; remand required for proper findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264 (1981) (adopted federal Speedy Trial Act factors for HRPP Rule 48(b))
- Taylor v. United States, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) (requirement to articulate the effect of factors on decision)
- Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47 (1982) (factors for dismissal after mistrial; not controlling for Rule 48(b))
- Kalani, 87 Haw. 260 (1998) (appointment of appellate jurisdiction over dismissal without prejudice)
- Kim, 109 Haw. 59 (App. 2005) (appeal jurisdiction discussion related to Rule 48 dismissals)