Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Kaneakua

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

January 30, 2014

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KIMO KANEAKUA, Defendant-Appellant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT PUNA DIVISION (CR. NO. 3P1-09-00260)

Lars Robert Isaacson for Defendant-Appellant

Roland J.K. Talon Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of Hawai'i for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fujise, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Kimo Kaneakua (Kaneakua) appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, filed on April 28, 2011 in the District Court of the Third Circuit, Puna Division (District Court).[1]

Kaneakua was convicted of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-712(1) (a) (1993), and sentenced to a one-year term of probation, with a six-month period of incarceration.[2] Kaneakua's term of imprisonment, except for a ten-day period, was stayed pending this appeal.

On appeal, Kaneakua contends: (1) the District Court erred by prohibiting testimony of two defense witnesses as a discovery sanction; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant rules, statutes, and case law, we resolve Kaneakua's points of error as follows:

"A court has broad discretion in the decision to impose discovery sanctions." State v. Marzo, 64 Haw. 395, 641 P.2d 1338 (1982). "Because imposition of such a sanction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, we will not disturb the trial court's decision unless there has been an abuse of that discretion." State v. Ahlo, 79 Hawai'i 385, 398, 903 P.2d 690, 703 (App. 1995) .

Here, Kaneakua contends that the District Court abused its discretion under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16 by precluding testimony of two witnesses as a discovery sanction for failing to comply with the District Court's order to disclose to the State their names, addresses, telephone numbers, a brief statement of their testimony, and their dates of birth.

HRPP Rule 16 provides, in relevant part:
Rule 16. Discovery.
(a) Applicability. Subject to subsection (d) of this rule, discovery under this rule may be obtained in and is limited to cases in which the defendant is charged with a felony, and may commence upon the filing in circuit ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.