Court Opinion

ID: 9634003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:11:59.781359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:27:20.594423
License: Public Domain

BURNS, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree with Judge Acoba’s opinion. I write separately solely because I have questions about a recent Hawaii Supreme Court case quoted in Judge Acoba’s opinion.
The definition of “clearly erroneous” was stated by the Hawaii Supreme Court on May 4, 1995, in State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383, 894 P.2d 80 (1995) as follows:
*491A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
78 Hawai'i at 392, 894 P.2d at 89 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Another definition of “clearly erroneous” was stated by the Hawai'i Supreme Court on November 15, 1995, in Wharton v. Hawaiian Elec., Inc., 80 Hawai'i 120, 906 P.2d 127 (1995) as follows:
[A]ppeals taken from findings [of fact] set forth in decisions of the Board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Thus, the court considers whether such a finding is [e]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record[J The clearly erroneous standard requires this court to sustain the Board’s findings unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.
80 Hawai'i at 122, 906 P.2d at 129 (citation omitted).
Okumura is a criminal appeal. Wharton is an agency appeal. As applied, is there a difference between their definitions of “clearly erroneous?” If so, what is the difference, and why is there a difference? If not, why is the Wharton wording of the definition different from the Okumura wording of the definition?