Opinion ID: 4527919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 1. Factual Determinations Regarding the Family Court’s Jurisdiction Over the Case Should Have Been Submitted to the Jury Hawaii’s family court is a division of the circuit 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  courts. Adams v. State, 103 Hawai‘i 214, 222, 81 P.3d 394, 402 (2003) (citing HRS § 571-3 (1993)). HRS § 571-14(a) (2018) gives the family court exclusive original jurisdiction “[t]o try any offense committed against a child by the child’s parent or guardian or by any other person having the child’s legal or physical custody.” 6 “In the first circuit any judge or judges so designated by the chief justice of the supreme court shall be the judge or judges of the family court of the first circuit.” HRS § 571-4 (2018). In 1996, an order was entered by Chief 6 The full text of subsections (1) and (2) - the subsections relevant here - is as follows: Except as provided in sections 603-21.5 and 604-8, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction: (1) To try any offense committed against a child by the child’s parent or guardian or by any other person having the child’s legal or physical custody, and any violation of section 707-726, 707-727, 709-902, 709903, 709-903.5, 709-904, 709-905, 709-906, or 302A1135, whether or not included in other provisions of this paragraph or paragraph (2); (2) To try any adult charged with: (A) Deserting, abandoning, or failing to provide support for any person in violation of law; (B) An offense, other than a felony, against the person of the defendant’s husband or wife; (C) Any violation of an order issued pursuant to chapter 586; or (D) Any violation of an order issued by a family court judge. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Justice Ronald Moon designating circuit judges of the first circuit to sit as family court judges. Order Designating Circuit Judges of the First Judicial Circuit of the State of Hawai‘i to Act as Circuit Family Judges, Hawai‘i Supreme Court (Oct. 29, 1996), https://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/sct_various_orders/order19.p df. Thus, when first circuit court judges preside over criminal cases in family court, it is immaterial whether or not the family court has jurisdiction under HRS § 571-14(a), circuit court judges sitting in family court have authority over both circuit and family matters. 7 Adams, 103 Hawai‘i at 222, 81 P.3d at 402. Pursuant to HRS § 701-114(1)(c)(2014), however, “no person may be convicted of an offense unless” the State proves “[f]acts establishing jurisdiction” beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted above, the family court has jurisdiction to try offenses allegedly committed against children by any person having legal or physical custody of the child. HRS § 57114(a)(1). The family court thus should have instructed the jury 7 District court and family court judges in the first, second, third, and fifth circuits are also temporarily assigned to preside in the circuit courts pursuant to a separate 1996 order from Chief Justice Moon. Assignment of District and District Family Court Judges, Hawaiʻi Supreme Cour t (Oct. 29, 1996), https://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/sct_various_orders/ord er19a.pdf. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Malave satisfied these criteria. 8 State v. Iuli, 101 Hawai‘i 196, 207, 65 P.3d 143, 154 (2003). We conclude that when a jury trial is conducted in family court in a case subject to HRS § 571-14(a), the jury should be instructed by way of a special interrogatory to find whether the defendant had physical or legal custody of the complaining witness. Because many family court judges are also circuit court judges, pursuant to Adams, lack of physical or legal custody alone may not justify an acquittal. If the jury finds that the defendant did not have physical or legal custody of the CW, and the presiding judge is both a family court judge and a circuit court judge, the judge has jurisdiction in the capacity of a circuit court judge. 9 2. Failure to Instruct the Jury on Jurisdiction Was Harmless “[W]here uncontradicted and undisputed evidence of . . . jurisdiction . . . is contained in the record, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury is harmless beyond a 8 Iuli thus implicitly overruled the holding in State v. Alagao, 77 Hawai‘i 260, 262, 883 P.2d 682, 684 (App. 1994), that “the court, not the jury, decides the facts relevant to the question of subject matter jurisdiction.” 9 We also note that while HRS § 571-14 allows the family court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over certain cases, it also allows waiver of that jurisdiction. 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  reasonable doubt.” Id. Malave’s application incorrectly states that there was “uncontroverted” evidence that Malave did not have legal or physical custody of CW at the time of the offenses. While it is clear that Malave did not have legal custody of CW, he has not presented any argument, or pointed to any evidence, showing that he did not have physical custody of CW. “‘Physical custody’ means the physical care and supervision of a child.” 10 HRS § 583A-102. The evidence in the record instead shows that Malave did have physical custody of CW for the reasons the ICA noted: CW lived with her mother, Malave, and CW’s two half-siblings; Malave watched and cared for CW while her mother was at work; Malave cooked meals, did laundry, disciplined CW, and sometimes helped her with homework; and CW was expected to follow Malave’s rules and obey him. Failure to instruct the jury on jurisdiction was thus harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.