Court Opinion

ID: 9588362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:33:27.279766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:09.205950
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OF
KOBAYASHI, J.
I disagree with the reasoning of the majority.
This case can be disposed of in a very succinct manner. I am of the opinion that the circuit court has ample jurisdiction and power to entertain and rule upon the request made by respondent Contemplo. HRS §§ 603-21(1), 603-25, 603-26. (Note of interest re injunction in a criminal case — see Kleinjans v. Lombardi, 52 Haw. 427.)
However, I will set aside the order of injunction for the reason that respondent Contemplo failed to show irreparable harm. Respondent Contemplo’s failure to seek an earlier date for a preliminary hearing coupled with a concern that he may not get a preliminary hearing before indictment is certainly insufficient to show any irreparable harm. Contemplo’s concern was merely anticipatory with no showing of substantive irreparable harm. Furthermore, he was guilty of neglect in not seeking an earlier hearing.
*370The issue is not a question of inviolate constitutional right of the criminal defendant. The issue is simply whether, under the facts of the case, the respondent criminal defendant was entitled to the injunction.
State v. Tominaga, 45 Haw. 604, 372 P.2d 356 (1962) can easily be distinguished from the instant case. In Tominaga the question was the grand jury’s right and power to return an indictment. However, in the instant case the injunction dealt with the right and power of the prosecutor to appear before the grand jury to seek an indictment.