Opinion ID: 871078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence to support an indictment

Text: In their briefs to the ICA, the parties disputed the applicable standard of review for a motion to dismiss an indictment. Taylor asserted that the applicable standard was de novo based on Wright v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 111 Hawai`i 401, 407, 142 P.3d 265, 271 (2006), because the questions before the ICA involved statutory interpretation. The State argued that the applicable standard for appellate court review of a circuit court's motion to dismiss was an abuse of discretion pursuant to State v. Akau, 118 Hawai`i 44, 51, 185 P.3d 229, 236 (2008). In cases involving allegations of prosecutorial abuse or misconduct, this court has applied an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment. See e.g., State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 282-83, 711 P.2d 731, 733-34 (1985) (involving an allegation that the State improperly indicted the defendant under one statute instead of a second statute). Nevertheless, in cases involving sufficiency of the evidence to support an indictment, this court appeared to apply a de novo standard. See, e.g., State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai`i 56, 59, 64, 929 P.2d 69, 72, 77 (1996) (discussing a conclusion of law, but evaluating the evidence presented to the grand jury de novo); see also State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai`i 358, 367, 917 P.2d 370, 379 (1996) (although this court did not explicitly identify the standard of review it was applying, this court evaluated the totality of the evidence presented to the grand jury and concluded that the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to elicit a strong suspicion and to support an inference that the defendant committed a crime). Therefore, because the instant case involves sufficiency of the evidence to support an indictment, we review the circuit court's order de novo. See Ontai, 84 Hawai`i at 59, 64, 929 P.2d at 72, 77; Ganal, 81 Hawai`i at 367, 917 P.2d at 379. Moreover, as this court noted in Ganal : In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to establish probable cause before the grand jury, every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the indictment and neither the trial court nor the appellate court on review may substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the Grand Jury. The evidence to support an indictment need not be sufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 367, 917 P.2d at 379 (internal quotation marks, citation and brackets omitted).