State v. Tierney, 277 P.3d 251

Tierney was charged with promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree (possession of marijuana) in 2008.
A court ordered a 704-404 fitness examination; Tierney refused to participate, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Examiner conducted two abortive examinations (July 2008 and August 2008) and could not render fitness/criminal responsibility opinions; no determination as to whether refusal was due to disease, disorder, or defect.
The district court proceeded to trial in late 2008 and Tierney was convicted; the ICA affirmed the conviction.
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, held that the examiner must state whether refusal was due to disease/defect (or that such determination is not possible), and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion, emphasizing the need for expert opinion to ensure due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HRS § 704-404(5) requires an opinion when the defendant refuses to participate.	Tierney argues the statute mandates an opinion on whether refusal results from mental/physical disease.	State contends the court can proceed on its own, relying on colloquy and examiner limits.	Yes; examiner must provide an opinion or state impossibility.
Whether proceeding to trial without a complete examiner’s report was an abuse of discretion.	Tierney asserts lack of examiner opinion deprived trial court of essential fitness evidence.	State maintains court may rely on colloquy and available records to determine fitness.	Yes; proceeding without the required examiner opinion was an abuse of discretion.
Whether the case should be remanded for further proceedings to address fitness and penal responsibility.	Remand is necessary to obtain proper expert opinions.	Trial already completed; resuming may be unnecessary if fitness cannot be reassessed.	Remand to pursue proper expert review consistent with the opinion.

Castro v. State, 93 Hawaii 454, 5 P.3d 444 (2000), 93 Hawaii 454 (Haw. 2000) (competence determinations require expert input; due process reliance on examiners)
Castro v. State, 93 Hawai`i 424, 5 P.3d 414 (2000), 93 Haw. 424 (Haw. 2000) (Castro II; competency framework and abuse of discretion standard with examiners)
State v. Madden, 97 Hawai`i 53, 33 P.3d 549 (App. 2001), 97 Haw. 53 (Haw. 2001) (ultimate fitness determination reserved to trial court; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Janto, 92 Hawai`i 19, 986 P.2d 306 (1999), 92 Haw. 19 (Haw. 1999) (review of competency rulings; reliance on examiner testimony)