Hawaii Case Laws

Click on the below to read Hawaii Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2006

Hawaii Case Laws 2012

In State v. Diaz, Case No. 30324 (Haw.App. April 30, 2012) the defendant posted a $1,000 cash bond.  He failed to appear on August 9, 2004, and the trial court entered a forfeiture judgment but apparently did not serve it on the defendant.  After many procedural complications, the Court considered the defendant’s contention that he had good cause to set aside the forfeiture because he was incarcerated in California on August 9, 2004.  The Court noted that remaining in Hawaii was a bond condition and that the defendant failed to explain the circumstances of his arrest in California.  The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no good cause for the defendant’s failure to appear and affirmed the Order denying return of the cash bond.

In State v. Villanueva, Case No. 30100 (Ha. App. April 3, 2012) the defendant failed to appear, the court entered a judgment forfeiting the bond, and the surety timely moved to set aside the judgment.  The trial court denied the surety’s motion.  Instead of appealing within the 30 day period provided by HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) for appeal from a final judgment, the surety waited several months and filed a motion for reconsideration.  After the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, the surety appealed.  The Court held that HRS §804-51 allows 30 days from the date notice is given the surety of the forfeiture judgment to file a motion or application to set aside the judgment.  The surety’s motion for reconsideration was filed well after that 30 day window, therefore the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear it.  The trial court’s denial of the surety’s timely motion was an appealable event, and the surety could not avoid the consequences of its failure to appeal by filing a motion for reconsideration.

In State v. Domingo, 2012 WL 745009 (Ha.App. March 7, 2012) the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the surety’s motions to set aside the bail forfeiture judgment and to continue the hearing to give the surety more time to produce the defendant.  The Court stated, “prior to the expiration of the thirty-day search period: AOBB failed to provide a satisfactory reason for Domingo’s failure to appear . . . and Domingo did not surrender nor was surrendered.”

State v. Mattos, 2012 WL 171608 (Ha.App. January 19, 2012) held that the surety had 30 days following receipt of notice that the defendant had failed to appear in which to move to set aside the forfeiture because the defendant had, or was, surrendered.  Here, the defendant was recovered six months later, but there was no grounds for the surety to file a motion, however nominated, after the closing of the 30 day window.  The trial court did not a

Hawaii Case Law 2011

State v. Chosa, 2011 WL 682260 (Ha. February 23, 2011) denied the surety’s Petition for Certiorari and declined to review the Court of Appeals decision reported at 2010 WL 4149216 (Ha. App. October 21, 2010).

Hawaii Case Law 2010

In State v. Vaimili, Case No. CAAP-10-17 (Ha.App. December 30, 2010) the trial court’s order denying the surety’s motion to set aside forfeiture of the bond was entered on August 16, 2010.  The surety’s notice of appeal from that order was filed on September 16.  The Court dismissed the appeal as untimely because the civil rules applicable to bail bond forfeitures required that the notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of entry of the order, and the notice was filed one day late.State v. Tierney, 2010 WL 4814195 (Ha.App. November 24, 2010) dismissed the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to return his bond.  The appeal was not filed within the 30 day period allowed for a civil appeal.

In State v. Moevao, 2010 WL 4149219 (Ha. App. October 21, 2010) the surety filed a motion to set aside bond forfeiture and discharge surety.  The motion was filed after expiration of the 30 day search period, which started when the surety received notice of the judgment of forfeiture.  The Court held that the motion was too late and did not explain what, if any, grounds the surety asserted to justify setting aside the forfeiture.

In State v. Chosa, 2010 WL 4149216 (Ha. App. October 21, 2010) the surety filed two timely motions to set aside the judgment and order of forfeiture of its bond.  Both motions relied on affidavits from the surety’s attorney that the defendant “will have been taken into custody or will personally appear before the Court to provide a reasonable explanation as to the reasons for his failure to appear at the date and time when previously ordered.”  The defendant did not appear, however, and was not surrendered by the surety.  The Court held that there was no good cause shown for the defendant’s non-appearance and affirmed denial of the surety’s motions.

In State v. Liupaono, 2010 WL 374576 (Hawaii January 6, 2010) the surety appealed from denial of its motion for reconsideration of denial of its motion to set aside forfeiture of its bond.  The record, however, did not include a judgment of forfeiture, a motion to set aside forfeiture, or an order denying such a motion.  The Court recognized that an order denying a motion to set aside forfeiture of a bail bond would be an appealable final order, but found that on the record before it there was no appealable order and therefore that it lacked jurisdiction.  The Court dismissed the appeal.

In State v. Pasion, 2010 WL 3706438 (Ha.App. September 23, 2010) the Court held that under HRS §804-51 the surety had 30 days from notice of the forfeiture judgment to surrender the defendant or file a motion showing good cause why the forfeiture should not be enforced.  Here the surety failed to show that it filed its motion to set aside the forfeiture within the 30 day period, therefore the order denying relief was affirmed.  The Court also noted that the surety had not demonstrated good cause for relief from the forfeiture.

Hawaii Case Law 2009

In State v. Diaz, 2009 WL 3290249 (Hawaii App. October 13, 2009) the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to set aside forfeiture of his bond and the defendant appealed.  The record did not include a judgment in favor of the state against the defendant and his surety, however, and the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  A final judgment in favor of the State was a prerequisite to the defendant’s filing his motion to set the judgment aside and to any appeal from an order denying the motion.

Hawaii Case Law 2008

State v. Mezurashi, 2008 WL 4899435 (Hawaii App. November 12, 2008) dismissed the surety’s untimely appeal from an order denying its motion to set aside the judgment forfeiting its bond. Bail forfeiture is a civil matter, and pursuant to Rule 4(a)(3), H.R.A.P., the surety’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of its motion to set aside the forfeiture extended the time to appeal until 30 days after entry of an order disposing of the motion. However, the motion for reconsideration was deemed to be denied when it was not ruled upon within 90 days. Thus, the 30 days to appeal ran from the date of that deemed denial, not from the actual denial of the motion several months later, and the surety’s appeal was untimely.

Hawaii Case Law 2006

In re Extradition of Chapman, 459 F.Supp.2d 1024 (D.Hawaii 2006) granted bail to three recovery agents (“Dog The Bounty Hunter” and two of his sons) arrested on an extradition request from Mexico. There is a presumption against bail in international extradition cases, but the court found special circumstances justifying bail including very low likelihood of flight by the defendants who are recognizable public figures with a lucrative television show.