State v. Lindsey — Vacated domestic-abuse conviction and ordered a new trial
Case State of Hawaiʻi v. William Lindsey Court Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth (David Y. Ige,
Case State of Hawaiʻi v. William Lindsey Court Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth (David Y. Ige,
Case State of Hawaii v. Cory M. Ferreira Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Hiraoka (David Ige, 2018); Wadsworth
Case Jason K. Perry v. State of Hawai’i Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Hiraoka (David Ige, 2018); Wadsworth
Case State of Hawai’i v. David Richard Stevens Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Leonard (Linda Lingle, 2007); Wadsworth
Case State of Hawai’i v. Natisha Tautalatasi Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Nakasone (David Y. Ige, 2020); Leonard
Case State of Hawai’i v. Justin Joshua Serrano Eugenio Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Leonard (Linda Lingle, 2007);
Case State of Hawai’i v. Kaden K. Kanae Court Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Hiraoka (David Ige, 2018) Date
Case State of Hawai’i v. Lori Landon Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Karen T. Nakasone (David Y. Ige,
Case State of Hawai’i v. Sonny E. Puerto Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Nakasone (David Y. Ige, 2020);
Case State of Hawaiʻi v. Currena Tomie Meyers Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Keith K. Hiraoka (David Y.
Case State of Hawaii v. Landon Kalanikoa Fernandez Court Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Leonard (Linda Lingle, 2007); Wadsworth
The ICA reversed an excessive speeding conviction because the State failed to prove the manufacturer’s specific training requirements for the LIDAR device, as required under the Assaye/Amiral framework.
The ICA affirmed an excessive speeding conviction, holding that evidence of driving 92 mph in a 60-mph zone was sufficient to prove recklessness under HRS § 291C-105(a)(2), regardless of the defendant’s subjective reason for accelerating.
In a published opinion, the ICA held that district courts exceed their statutory authority when requiring OVUII defendants to appear for substance abuse compliance hearings, extending the Supreme Court’s Fay decision and holding such hearings are impermissibly akin to probation.