Territory Hawai`i v. Meyer, 2551.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1945
• Docket Number: No. 2551.,No. 2555.,2551.,2555.
• Parties: TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. CARL MEYER.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

37 Haw. 102

TERRITORY OF HAWAII

v.CARL MEYER.

No. 2551.

No. 2555.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued April 16, 17, 1945.

Decided June 15, 1945.

ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT THIRD CIRCUIT, HON. R. J. O'BRIEN, JUDGE.

ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT THIRD CIRCUIT, HON. P. L. RICE, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

Where appellant's brief does not contain a specification of the errors relied upon as required by the rule of the appellate court ( Rules Sup. Ct., 36 Haw. 753, rule 3, par. 1 [d]), and no portions of his brief are susceptible to being construed as constituting reasonable and substantial compliance, the assignments of error need not be considered and the writs should be dismissed.

J. V. Esposito (also on the briefs) for defendant, plaintiff in error.

M. Pence, County Attorney County of Hawaii (also on the briefs) for plaintiff, defendant in error.

KEMP, C. J., LE BARON, J., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CASSIDY IN PLACE OF PETERS, J., ABSENT.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LE BARON, J.

The appellant by writs of error seeks review of two extensive trials at each of which the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of larceny in the first degree and different presiding trial judges sentenced him to the penitentiary. Under the first writ there are nineteen assignments of error and under the second there are twenty-eight, two of the second being expressly abandoned in the briefs. There are thus a total of forty-five assignments submitted for consideration. Nevertheless appellant's briefs, purportedly a presentation for review, contain no itemized statement whatsoever of the errors counted upon for reversal of the judgments below, although without amplification the briefs tersely state that appellant relies upon “each and every one” of the forty-five assignments of error which cover seventy-one typewritten pages and are incorporated verbatim therein. From this state of the record there arises the question whether appellant's briefs reasonably and substantially comply with the rule of this court governing the preparation of briefs so as to merit appellate consideration of the assignments of error. The rule provides inter alia that an appellant's brief “shall contain * * * a specification of the errors which are relied upon.” ( Rules Sup. Ct., 36 Haw. 753, rule 3, par. 1 [[[d].)

As stated generally in Trust Co. v. Cabrinha, 24 Haw. 655 at 657, “The rules of the supreme court are provided for the convenience, guidance and protection of all those having business before it and any attempt to ignore or evade the rules should be summarily checked.” In line therewith, this court repeatedly has emphasized the importance of reasonable and substantial compliance with the above requirement pertaining to an appellant's brief and sufficiently warned appellants in general that failure so to observe it would warrant dismissal. (See Ter. v. Taok, 33 Haw. 560; Furtado v. Rezents, 33 Haw. 569; Watumull v. Tax Commissioner, 34 Haw. 84.) The salutary effect of such observance is apparent in that the rule requires an appellant, regardless of the mode of statutory appeal, to list concisely and state explicitly those errors upon which he believes the efficacy of the appeal itself depends so as to enable both opposing counsel and the appellate court to appreciate readily whatever cogency his appeal as such may have without resorting to a digest of the record proper. It further directs their attention to the vital questions to be considered and the controlling points to be discussed on appeal, thus affording opposing counsel a better opportunity to meet and answer them intelligently and thereby placing the appellate court in proper position to determine the appeal in expedition of its calendar. The requirement directly synchronizes with the other requirements of...