Case Title: State v. Ke

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.
No. 26495

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

STATE OF HAWAT'T, Pleintiff-Appellant,

~ ad)

WARREN WON HO KE, Defendant-Appellee. — 8
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD zo

(REPORT NO. G-93151)

tafowy 2

(ey: Moon, €.3., Lethnon Nakayena, Revs, and Duffy, 39.)
Plasneitf-Appellant state of Haval'l (*prosecution”),

appeals fron the first circuit district court's! (*aistrict
court) April 1, 2004 order dismissing CIT. NO. G-83181 without
prejudice.? On appeal, the prosecution contends that the
prosecuting attorney's failure to appear at 2 pretrial hearing
did not warrant dismissal under either Rules of the District
Courts of Hawai'i ("RDCH”) Rule 15(b)? or the district court’s

{the Honorable Matthew $.K. Pyun presided.

 

2 the prosecution filed complaint on December 26, 2003 charging
Warren Won Mo Ke [°ke") with four counts of the offense of False Swearing in
Sefisiel Matters, in viclation of HRS §-710-1062(1) (a). RS § 720-1061(2) (a)
(1993) provides that “[a] person commits the offense of false swearing in
SielaleP'eatters if the person makes, under an cath required or authorized by
Saw, a dalse statenent which the person does not believe to be true, and .
[tlhe statenent is made in an official proceeding(.|" The offense is «
Aigcenesnor, Se HRS § 710-1061(2) (1983) ("Felse swearing in official
Batters it & misdeneancr.")

 

  

2 ROC Rude 151) (2004) states that

ajn attorney who, without just cause, fails to appear when the
Attorney's case 14 before the court on a call or motion oF on pre-
EESGI"or trials or anjustifiebly fails to prepare fore
presentation to the court necessitating a continuance, my be
Eubiect to such Sanction as the court deems appropriate, including
(continved..-)

 

 

nos
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

inherent powers.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the argunents advanced and the issues raised, we hold that the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the district court
abused its discretion.

It is well-settled that the district court has the
inherent authority to dismiss a criminal case. See State v
Maceo, 78 Hawai's 33, 37, 689 P.24 1092, 1096 (App. 1995) ("A
trial court's exercise of its inherent power to dismiss a
criminal case with prejudice was upheld in State v Moriwake, 65
Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (1982)."). Thus, “the crucial question is
not the existence of power, but the propriety of its exercise on
the facts of a particular case.” State v, Braunsdorf, 297 N.W.2d
808, 818 (Wis. 1980) (Day, J., dissenting).

 

Here, the district court granted Ke’s motion to dismiss

 

the prosecution's case without prejudice because the prosecuting
attorney failed to appear at a scheduled pretrial hearing and
failed to make arrangements for another to appear in his stead.
The prosecution contends that the district court should have
granted a continuance and imposed sanctions against the

prosecuting attorney as opposed to dismissing the case. While

(., seont inves)
‘an award of reasonable

 

etorney's fees,

 

+ we review o trial court's dismissal of an indicteent for an abuse
of discretion, See State v. Kim, 109 Hewai's $9, €2, 122 P.3d 1157, 1160
(App. 2005) ("A trial court’s ruilng on # motion to dismiss an indictment ie
feviewed for an abuse of discretion.”) (Citing State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw.
260, 263, 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1965) -]

 
   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

the district court would certainly have been within its
discretion to sua sponte deny the motion and continue the matter,
under the present circumstances we do not believe that it
“exceeded the bounds of reason” or “disregarded rules or
principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a
party litigant” by granting the motion. Office of Hawaitian
Affairs v. State, 110 Hawai'i 338, 351, 133 P.3d 767, 780 (2006)
(citing Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hinshaw, 103 Hawai'i 26, 30, 79 P.3d
119, 123 (2003).

‘The prosecution attempts to enhance our scrutiny of the
district court's ruling by characterizing it as a dismissal with
prejudice.’ The prosecution asserts that the district court's
ruling must be construed as a dismissal with prejudice, insofar
as the two-year statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 701-
108(2)(e),* for all practical purposes, precluded the prosecution

from refiling the complaint. However, that contention is belied

 

+ a gismissal with prejudice would have required the district court
to *palanc(e] the interest of the state against fundamental fairness to =
Setendant with the scded ingredient of the orderly functioning of the court
Systems”, Morivake, €5 law, at 56, 687 P.2d at 712 (quoting Braunadoit, 257
Wheda oe SET EEh Such situations, we have also admonished triei courts to
Josue written findings of fact and Conclusions of law, See id. at 57 0.16,
G4)'8.20 ot 113 n-16 ("Because of the Nature of crininal proceedings, and
Sacause they are in the interests and for the protection of the public, there
Sea sound basis in public policy for requiring the judge who assumes the
ferious responsibility of dismissing a esse to set forth his reasons for doing
So in order that all may. know what invokes the court’s discretion and whether

 

 

fee action is justified") (Quoting Sale Lake City v. Wanson, 425 F.2d 773,
355 (Oton 1967).)7 Mago, 78 Hawai'i at 38, 669 P20 at 1097 (*In the future,

fal courts exercseing this poner should issue written factual findings
Setting forth their seasons for dismissal with prejudice so that reviewing
Court may accurately assess whether the trial court duly exercised its
Siseretion.")

 

 

+ aRs § 701-108(2) (©) (Supp. 2001) states that “(a) prosecution for
stisdeneanor' oz parking violation must Be commenced within fWo years after sx
fe" commieteal.J"

3
 

+ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

by the fact that the statutory deadline fell on a Saturday, thus
allowing the prosecution to refile the following Monday.’ The
prosecution's failure to refile its complaint foreclosed its
ability to prosecute Ke, not the district court’s dismissal
without prejudice. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the final order from which
the appeal is taken is affimed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 7, 2007.
on the briefs:
Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Gro—
Prosecuting attorney and

Nicole C. Wipp, Law Clerk

on the brief, for plaintirt- _Slicab sien sem

appellant

Dayna-Ann A. Mendonca, Det Owe Oe
Deputy Public Defender,

for defendant-appelice Boe

Gores «igs rs

 

The complaint alleged that the conduct for which Ke was being
charged occurred on of about December 27, 2001. The complaint was filed on
December 26, 2003, The statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency
Of the prosecution. Sge HRS § 701-108 (6) (b) (Supp. 2001) (~The period of
Tinitacton does not run [dJuriag any time when a prosecution against the
accused for the sane conduct is pending in this State(.]").. The district
Court dismissed the case on March s, 2004, When the matter was dismissed, the
Statute of Limstations segsn to run, affording the prosecution until March 6,
2004 to Fefile its complaint. Gecaise March Gy 2006 fell on a Saturday, the
deadline uss extended to March & 2004, the following Monday. See RS § 1-29
(1993) (The tine in which any act provided by law 1s to be done is computed
by excluding the first day and including the Last, unless the last day is 2
Sunday or heliday and then it ie also excluded.

oficoust, the last dav cleo shall be excluded i¢ fetes Saturday")

(Euphasis eddec.); #RPP Rule 45 (2004) (~The last day of the period so
Computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, of a holiday, sn
Watch event the period runs until the end of the next day which As note
Saturday, Sunday, oF a holiday.”)