Opinion ID: 2585491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On December 6, 2000, the prosecution filed petitions alleging that the Minors came within the purview of HRS § 571-11(1) (1993), [2] on the basis that they allegedly committed or attempted to commit the offense of assault in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 707-712(1)(a) (1993). The same day, the Minors entered denials of the prosecution's charges and the family court, the Honorable William J. Nagle, III, presiding, found that there were sufficient facts to require continued detention of the Minors until their trials on December 12, 2000. The next day, December 7, 2000, both minors filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant, inter alia, to HRS § 660-3 (1993), [3] in which they argued that they were being held illegally because the family court had not been presented with any evidence upon which it could base its finding that probable cause existed to detain them. In the affidavit that the Minors' counsel filed with each of their petitions, counsel attested that, although Judge Nagle had found that probable cause existed to detain the [M]inor[s] until trial[,] no evidence of any kind was presented to Judge Nagle to support the finding of probable cause[.] The family court conducted a consolidated hearing on the petitions on December 11, 2000. The prosecution argued that, because Minor 1 had not objected when Judge Nagle did find probable cause ... to hold the minor, he had waived his right to challenge the family court's determination of probable cause or had impliedly agreed that there was probable cause to hold him at that point. In addition, the prosecution suggested that the family court could cure any alleged error in Judge Nagle's determination by reviewing the police reports regarding the Minors and making a new determination of probable cause. Counsel for the Minors contended that, pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the family court was required to base its determination on facts and circumstances submitted to the court, not just a complaint, regardless of whether the minor requested it or not, and that the error could not be cured. The family court subsequently reviewed the police reports regarding each minor's case and found that probable cause existed to believe that the Minors fell within the purview of HRS § 571-11, see supra note 1. [4] Accordingly, the circuit court orally ruled as follows: Insofar as the writ of habeas corpus points to ... lack of legal foundation for the probable cause decisions which were made at the time of detention, that's cured. And I do not find thatthat an appropriate remedy would be therefore to release the kids. Insofar as the writ challenges family court's ... basic authority to deal with these kids, I had already ruled on that, that regardless of the new charges and any defects thatthat might have occurred with the two charges, that notwithstanding that[,] that given the [probation] status of each kid, each of these two juveniles, that the Court did have independent authority in any case to hold them. In addition, the family court ruled that Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 5 (2001), [5] which the Minors urged the family court to consider, was inapplicable to family court proceedings. Consequently, the family court denied the Minors' petitions. On December 12, 2000, the family court filed a decree regarding the prosecution's petition concerning Minor 1's law violation, in which it found that the material allegations of [Minor 1's] petition have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that [Minor 1] is a law violator within the purview of HRS [§ ] 571-11(1). The family court's decree noted, however, that the charge against Minor 1 had been [a]mended to [a]ffray, pursuant to HRS § 707-712(2). The family court transferred further disposition of Minor 1's case to the third circuit court. As for Minor 2, the family court dismissed the prosecution's petition with prejudice. On January 12, 2001, the family court entered its written orders denying the Minors' petitions for writs of habeas corpus; on January 17, 2001, the Minors filed notices of appeal from the family court's January 12, 2001 written orders. The Minors' appeals were subsequently consolidated.