Court Opinion

ID: 870416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-05-25 00:34:27.026775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:27.395193
License: Public Domain

LAW L§BF§A~Y*`»`»§`Y'

 

No. 30678
IN THE sUPREME coURT or THE sTATE oF HAwA1T
. . 33
LoR1 TowNsEND, Pet1t1oner, §§
¢"?;‘
VS. , ,
AB’ ..“i":
THE HoNoRABLE EDwARD H. KUBo, JUDGE or THE cl °" rr
coURT oF THE FIRsT c1RcUIT, sTATE or HAwAi‘ImW §§ F¥
sTATE or HAwAl‘:, Respondents. 55 YW
<.`.3
oRIGINAL PRocEEDING
(Fc-cR No. 10-1-1595)
oRDER
Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba,

Upon consideration of petitioner Lori Townsend’s

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it
appears that the respondent judge's August l8, 2010 ruling that

petitioner does not have a bona fide Fifth Amendment privilege
was not beyond the bounds of reason or in disregard of the law
permitting the respondent judge to appraise petitioner’s claim of

privilege by the respondent judge’s personal perception of the

l0-l-l595. See State v. KuDihea, 80

peculiarities of FC-CR No.
ll27-28 (l996).

909 P.2d ll22,

The denial

Hawafi 307, 312-l3,
of petitioner’s motion to quash the prosecution’s subpoena was

not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion and consequently,
petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. ee Kema v.

91 HawaiU.200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (l999) (A

Gaddis,
writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately
Such writs are

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.

not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of
the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal
remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court
has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has
acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to
act.). Therefore,

lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

IT lS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of the proceedings
in FC-CR No. 10-l-1595 is lifted.

DATED: Honolulu, HawaiUq August 25, 20l0.
bmuAm4Q“r¢mKQ44@d5

/v-vc-~§

@-» s. D~»aeg/Q\»