State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 21 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 9549,9549 |
| Citation | 693 P.2d 1029,67 Haw. 513 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julie ANDERSON, also known as Kimberly Kay Brewer, Jennifer Kay Edwards, Sandy, and Julie Alexander, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 12(e) requires that lower courts state their essential findings on the record when factual issues are involved in determining a motion.
2. Cases will be remanded when the factual basis of the lower court's ruling cannot be determined from the record.
Alexa D.M. Fujise, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu (Arthur E. Ross, Deputy Prosecuting Atty., Honolulu, on opening brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Edward K. Harada, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu (Richard Pollack, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu, with him on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.
Defendant, Julie Anderson, was arrested and indicted for promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree. She made a timely motion to suppress evidence which was heard by the lower court. At the suppression hearing the arresting police officer and the defendant testified. The testimony by the police officer and the defendant are in substantial conflict. The police officer testified that he saw quaaludes in defendant's purse while he was giving aid to defendant while she was ill. Defendant testified that she was ordered to stop and give the police officer her purse for no reason. The validity of the alleged search and seizure depends on the weighing of a myriad of factual determinations. The lower court, however, made absolutely no findings of fact. It is impossible for this court to determine the factual basis for the lower court's ruling. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 12(e) states that "[w]here factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record." It is without dispute that the trial court failed to make any findings. It is also without question that this court has the responsibility of reviewing decisions of the lower courts. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-5 (Supp.1984). Because such findings are imperative for an adequate judicial review of a lower court's conclusions of law, we hold that cases will be remanded when the factual basis of the lower court's ruling cannot be determined from the record. In United States v. Castrillon, 716 F.2d 1279, 1282-83 (9th Cir.1983), the same course of action was followed by the federal court. In dealing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balogh v. Balogh
...cannot be determined from the record.’ " State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 331, 861 P.2d 11, 23 (1993) (quoting State v. Anderson, 67 Haw. 513, 514, 693 P.2d 1029, 1030 (1985) ).12 Substantial evidence is credible evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonabl......
-
State v. Hutch
...cases will be remanded when the factual basis of the lower court's ruling cannot be determined from the record." State v. Anderson, 67 Haw. 513, 514, 693 P.2d 1029, 1030 (1985); see also State v. Rodgers, 70 Haw. 156, 766 P.2d 675 III. CONCLUSION Because we hold that the trial courts in Cr.......
-
In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated July 17
...ruling cannot be determined from the record." (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Anderson, 67 Haw. 513, 514, 693 P.2d 1029, 1030 (1985) )); Anderson, 67 Haw. at 514, 693 P.2d at 1030 (remanding after determining that the lower court granted the motion to su......
-
State v. Visintin
...be remanded when the factual basis of the lower court’s ruling cannot be determined from the record." See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 67 Haw. 513, 514, 693 P.2d 1029, 1030 (1985) (remanding to the lower court after determining that the lower court granted the motion to suppress without having......