Opinion ID: 4222678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the petitions for writs of mandamus

Text: Moana and Curioso argue that the judges in their individual cases violated HRPP Rule 5(c)(3) by denying their respective motions for release on their own recognizance. This rule requires that a court release a defendant upon motion “if the defendant is held in custody for a period of more than 2 days after initial appearance without commencement of a defendant’s preliminary hearing.” HRPP Rule 5(c)(3). However, 5 The period also included a weekend, which is not figured into this total. See supra, note 2. 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the State may maintain custody of a defendant when the delay is caused by the defendant or occurs with the defendant’s consent. Id. Release is also not required when the failure to commence a timely preliminary hearing is attributable to a “compelling fact or circumstance” that would preclude determination of probable cause or commencement of the hearing or would render the defendant’s “release to be against the interest of justice.” Id. In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Moana argues that a preliminary hearing did not commence within two days from his initial appearance, obligating the family court to release him upon his motion. Moana states that the court appeared to base its ruling denying his release on a finding of a compelling fact or circumstance. He disputes, however, that compelling reasons existed to hold him in custody under any of HRPP Rule 5(c)(3)’s exceptions. In its response, the State argues that the court properly found compelling reasons to keep Moana in custody, including Moana’s criminal history, the nature of the alleged offense, and the vulnerable nature of the complainant and their child. In his petition, Curioso similarly argues that a preliminary hearing did not commence within two days of his initial appearance and that none of HRPP Rule 5(c)(3)’s exceptions justified his continued detention. He asserts that 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the State’s failure to obtain an interpreter for the complainant was neither a compelling circumstance precluding the commencement of a preliminary hearing within two days of his initial appearance nor one rendering his release against the interest of justice. He points out that the State had five days to speak with the complainant following his arrest to determine if an interpreter was needed for the preliminary hearing. The State responds that it diligently attempted to find an interpreter as soon as the complainant requested one. In a declaration attached to the State’s response, the prosecutor who requested the continuance avers that her review of case materials prior to the hearing did not reveal a need for an interpreter and that she was not informed of the request until the morning of the scheduled preliminary hearing. She further avers that the State’s victim witness advocate made calls to ten different interpreters but was unable to arrange one for the scheduled time. The prosecutor also states that she was unable to convince the complainant to proceed without an interpreter. The prosecutor does not aver that any of this information was placed on the record on the date of the scheduled hearing. The State asserts that the lack of an interpreter to aid the complainant in her testimony constituted a compelling circumstance that justified the district court’s decision to not 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER release Curioso. In support of its argument, the State points to this court’s repeated pronouncements regarding the fundamental importance of individuals involved in litigation understanding the proceedings and being understood in turn.