State v. Valletta, 8527
| Decision Date | 19 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8527,8527 |
| Citation | 66 Haw. 351,662 P.2d 204 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Roy VALLETTA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An unreasonable delay in the prosecution of a criminal case is presumptively prejudicial and therefore, unless an order dismissing an indictment for unreasonable delay on the part of the prosecution specifically provides that it was without prejudice, or it specifically finds that there has been no prejudice to the accused's defense, it shall be deemed to be with prejudice.
Philip H. Lowenthal, Wailuku (Lowenthal & August, Wailuku, of counsel), on briefs for defendant-appellant.
Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Pros. Atty., Wailuku, on brief for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUM, Acting C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT and HAYASHI, JJ., and MOON, Circuit Judge, assigned by reason of vacancy.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree under HRS § 712-1247(1)(e). The judgment was filed December 1, 1981.
A previous indictment on the same charge had been returned on September 6, 1979 and docketed as Criminal No. 5665 in the Second Circuit.
The charge against appellant was one of several similar cases on Maui growing out of the seizure of marijuana after it had allegedly been located by helicopter surveillance of private property. Appellant along with other defendants initially filed motions to dismiss and to suppress the evidence and then made an informal demand for discovery of particulars of the helicopter survey from the prosecution in order to adduce facts to support the motion to suppress.
According to the testimony taken on November 26, 1980, in a hearing on a motion to dismiss in the parallel cases, the prosecution had repeatedly promised to produce the requested material but did not do so until late 1980. The defense claimed to have been prejudiced by the delay in the loss of witnesses who could support its motions to suppress in the various cases. On this basis, appellant, on November 12, 1980, filed a motion to dismiss claiming unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the case. Appellant cited Rule 48 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP). A second motion on the same grounds was filed on December 4, 1980. On December 9, 1980, No. 5665
along with Criminal Nos. 5660 and 5667 were dismissed pursuant to an order which stated as follows:
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Motions to dismiss having been filed on December 4, 1980 by the above-named Defendants on the ground that there has been an unreasonable delay in the prosecution of said cases, and a hearing thereon having come on for hearing on December 8, 1980 and there being no objection from the prosecution and
IT IS ORDERED that said motions to dismiss be granted.
DATED: Dec 9 1980.
/s/ Kase Higa (Seal)
/s/ Gerard Lee Loy
Gerard Lee Loy
Despite the statement in the order that a hearing was held on December 8, 1980, there is no transcript before us of any such hearing, and the minutes in the file do not reflect that any hearing was in fact held.
The prosecution subsequently moved to reconsider the order. Although, on the record, that motion was not disposed of, the prosecution claims here that it was withdrawn.
The present case began with appellant's reindictment on the same charges on January 16, 1981. On April 15, appellant moved to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel because of the order of dismissal in Criminal No. 5665. The court denied the appellant's motion, stating in the course of the hearing "the dismissal was without prejudice."
Subsequently trial was held and appellant was convicted and sentenced.
This appeal followed.
Rule 48(b), HRPP, provides:
(b) By Court. Except in the case of traffic offenses, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, dismiss the charge, with or without prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not commenced within 6 months from:
(1) the date of arrest or of filing of the charge, whichever is sooner, on any offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode for which the arrest or charge was made; or
(2) from the date of re-arrest or re-filing of the charge, in cases where an initial charge was dismissed upon motion of the defendant; or
(3) from the date of mistrial, order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Durry
...109 (1980). The State concedes that the nineteen-month delay to the time of trial was "presumptively prejudicial," State v. Valletta, 66 Haw. 351, 662 P.2d 204 (1983), and that the other factors for determining whether there has been a violation of Durry's speedy trial rights must be examin......
-
78 Hawai'i 33, State v. Mageo
...finds that there has been no prejudice to the accused's defense by the delay, is with prejudice." State v. Valletta, 66 Haw. 351, 353, 662 P.2d 204, 205 (1983) (per curiam). 11 Finally, under the facts, we fail to see any viable basis for holding that the State, after the long unexplained d......
-
State v. Ferraro, 14026
...Defendant's rights were not violated. A. Length of Delay We find the length of the delay presumptively prejudicial. State v. Valletta, 66 Haw. 351, 662 P.2d 204 (1983). B. Reasons for the The thrust of Defendant's argument is that the main reason for the pre-trial delay was the absence of H......
-
State v. Hanawahine, 12421
...the case for a determination on whether the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. See State v. Valletta, 66 Hawaii 351, 662 P.2d 204 (1983). 1 The statutes read in relevant part:§ 708-831 Theft in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of theft in t......