Opinion ID: 871078
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Taylor's motions in circuit court

Text: On July 24, 2007, Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. Taylor argued, inter alia, that the artifacts predicating the State's indictment are not the `property of another' under HRS § 708-800 [9] and that the indictment charged Taylor for an offense that he already had been prosecuted for in federal district court in violation of HRS § 701-112. [10] The State argued, inter alia, that it was only required to prove that the property belonged to someone other than Taylor. The State also argued that the instant prosecution was not barred by HRS § 701-112 because the two-pronged exception set forth in HRS § 701-112(1)(a) was met in this case. The State contended that the offense of theft in the first degree require[d] proof of a fact not required by the former prosecution in the [federal district court], namely that the value of the property exceeds $20,000[,] and that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil. On August 30, 2007, the circuit court held a hearing on Taylor's motion to dismiss. Regarding Taylor's property of another argument, the circuit court indicated that it thought HRS chapter 6E, concerning historic preservation, applied and ordered the parties to provide a supplemental memorandum on the topic. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court took the matter under advisement. The State subsequently filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss in which it argued that the artifacts were the historic property of the State, pursuant to HRS § 6E-7. [11] Attached to the supplemental memorandum was a declaration of Deputy Attorney General Mark K. Miyahira, declaring that documentation indicates that Kanupa Cave is located on State-owned land on the island of Hawai`i, and that the artifacts that are the basis of this prosecution are more than fifty (50) years old. Taylor argued in his supplemental memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss that neither the State nor anyone else has possession of the artifacts[] because, pursuant to HRS § 6E-7(c), [12] the State's interest in the artifacts is solely to `preserve' them for `proper disposition' to the lineal or cultural descendants of the people with whom the artifacts were interred. [13]