State v. Pavich, 158 Haw. 65

Dr. Edward Bird was murdered in his home in December 2000, and Pavich was later indicted and convicted of multiple offenses including second-degree murder. 1
Before trial, the State disclosed a forensic DNA report and later a supplemental report analyzing blood-like stains on napkins recovered from Bird's apartment. 2
After trial, Pavich sought post-trial funds to peer review the supplemental DNA report, and this court in Pavich I held he was entitled to a peer review and a possible new-trial motion. 3
On remand in 2009, Pavich expressly waived peer review and a new-trial motion after the circuit court explained that his convictions would stand if he did not proceed. 4
In 2010 the circuit court ordered the parties' exhibits disposed of, and in 2011 the Maui Police Department destroyed four napkins with blood-like stains. 5
Pavich later filed motions to withdraw his waiver and for a new trial, but the circuit court denied relief in the April 2023 Order from which he appealed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pavich knowingly waived peer review and a new trial 7	Pavich's waiver colloquy was defective and uninformed	His 2009 waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary	Waiver stands; denial of withdrawal motion affirmed 8
Whether destruction of DNA evidence requires vacatur 9	Pavich claims due process and HRS 844D violations from destroyed evidence	Pavich waived peer review, and no basis exists to vacate convictions	Convictions not vacated under Brady, HRS 844D-126, or HRPP Rule 16 10
Whether trial and post-conviction counsel were ineffective 11	Shigetomi and Parker failed to protect DNA and waiver rights	Counsel acted competently under the circumstances	No ineffective assistance shown 12
Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct 13	The State mishandled DNA evidence and trial disclosures	Claims were waived or unsupported	No prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal 14

State v. Pavich, 119 Hawaiʻi 74, 193 P.3d 1274 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008) (remanded for funded peer review of the supplemental DNA report and possible new-trial motion 15)
State v. Brandimart, 68 Haw. 495, 720 P.2d 1009 (Haw. 1986) (motion for reconsideration does not toll the time to appeal 16)
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (Brady is the wrong framework for post-conviction DNA-rights claims 17)
State v. Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi 434, 555 P.3d 121 (Haw. 2024) (sets the two-part ineffective-assistance standard 18)
State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawaiʻi 504, 78 P.3d 317 (Haw. 2003) (cited with Yuen for ineffective-assistance standards 19)
State v. Richie, 88 Hawaiʻi 19, 960 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1998) (failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance; witness claims need sworn support 20)
State v. Willis, 156 Hawaiʻi 195, 572 P.3d 668 (Haw. 2025) (prosecutorial misconduct requires impropriety and harmlessness analysis 21)
In re Tax Appeal of Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc., 76 Hawaiʻi 1, 868 P.2d 419 (Haw. 1994) (issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived 22)