State v. Rodgers, 12707
| Decision Date | 28 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 12707,12707 |
| Citation | 70 Haw. 156,766 P.2d 675 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles I. RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under HFCR 81(c) and HRPP 12(e), a motion to suppress evidence, filed in advance of a trial, must be heard in advance of the trial, and the hearing cannot be merged into the trial itself.
2. Under HFCR 81(c) and HRPP 12(e), a trial judge hearing a motion to suppress must state his findings thereon on the record.
Reuel Toyama (Clifford B. Hunt and Susan Barr, on the brief), Deputy Public Defenders, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.
Vickie L. Silberstein, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT and WAKATSUKI, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction of physically abusing a household member in violation of HRS § 709-906. The petition in question was filed March 11, 1987. On April 20, 1987, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence. No transcript of the hearing on the return date to the motion, May 15, 1987, has been provided us. The minutes of the court reflect that the case was continued for trial and a hearing on the motion to suppress to a later date. There were various mesne continuances and the case was finally tried on January 21, 1988 when appellant was found guilty.
The trial judge lumped together the hearing on the motion to suppress and the trial, and rendered no findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the various contentions raised by appellant on the motion to suppress.
Hawaii Family Court Rule 81(c) provides:
Cases for adults charged with commission of a crime coming within the jurisdiction of the family courts shall be governed by the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure. 1
Rule 12(e) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure provides:
A motion made before trial shall be determined before trial unless the court orders that it be deferred for determination at the trial of the general issue or until after verdict; provided that a motion to suppress made before trial shall be determined before trial. Where factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record.
(Underscoring supplied.)
It is obvious in this case that the trial judge violated HRPP 12(e) in two respects. One, he did not hold a hearing and determine the motion to suppress before trial. Two, he did not state on the record the findings and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chang
...obvious" that "lump[ing] together the hearing on the motion to suppress and the trial" violates HRPP Rule 12(e). State v. Rodgers, 70 Haw. 156, 157, 766 P.3d 675, 675 (1988). In State v. Thomas, the holding in Doyle was reaffirmed, and the court stated that "[t]he only occasion where a cour......
-
State v. Hutch
...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 (1988). III. Because we hold that the trial courts in Cr. Nos. 90-0277 and 89-0395 erred in denying Hutch's HRPP 48(b) motions ......
-
State v. Yihong Zhang
...HRPP Rule 12(e) when it fails to state on the record the findings and conclusions made on a motion to suppress. State v. Rodgers, 70 Haw. 156, 156, 766 P.2d 675, 675-76 (1988). Here, the District Court erred in failing to state its essential findings on the record in compliance with HRPP Ru......
-
State v. Tokunaga
...See HRPP Rule 12(b) and (e). See also State v. Thomas, 72 Haw. 48, 53-54, 805 P.2d 1212, 1214-15 (1991) (citing State v. Rodgers, 70 Haw. 156, 157, 766 P.2d 675, 675 (1988) ) (trial court's failure to decide a motion to suppress prior to trial constituted reversible error). Because there is......