August 28, 2026 Case Summaries

The court did not abuse its discretion when it decided that the sheriff’s office’s records were within the prosecution’s constructive possession and that the sheriff’s office violated both Rule 16 and section 16-2.5-502 when it did not notify the prosecution of the records’ existence. The officers at issue are were Dallas Janecek and Karin Carroll of the Adams County Sheriff’s Office. The law, however, applies to all law enforcement agencies that “assisted with the case.” Solano v. Newman, 2024 COA 93M, ¶ 44 (“[C]ase law has consistently held that the prosecutor is in constructive custody or possession of information held by law enforcement officials who assisted with the case.”).

The preliminary hearing court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the second-degree burglary charge against Townsend because the prosecution failed to present evidence on a critical element — that Townsend had actual knowledge that he was not permitted to enter J.R.’s house at the time he entered.

The trial court reversibly erred by refusing to instruct the jury that deadly physical force may have been justified if the alleged victim was committing or reasonably appeared to be about to commit assault, robbery, or both.

Issue #1: The division found that the trial court reversibly erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the mitigating factor of heat of passion. Issue #2: The trial court also erred by refusing to instruct the jurors that, pursuant to 18-1-704(2)(c), Swainson’s use of deadly force was justified if he reasonably believed that one or more of his assailants was about to commit (at least) second-degree assault. Issue #3: The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the ordinary (non-deadly) use of force as self-defense because Swainson’s act of wildly swinging a pocketknife in a manner that caused one person’s death constituted deadly force.

As the AG conceded, the postconviction court erred by denying the defense reasonable time to obtain the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearing. Although the statute of limitations would likely bar relief on the merits, and the transcripts were unlikely to establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect, due process requires that defendants have “an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly.” People v. Bell, 2026 CO 28.

The trial court committed plain reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that the government had the burden to disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

This opinion is remarkable for two distinct reasons. First, it creates a due process cause of action under the Hawaii Constitution for situations where materially false evidence contributes to a conviction – regardless of whether the prosecution knew or should have known that the evidence was false. This provides a doctrinal framework for an emerging category of post-conviction claims: convictions built on forensic evidence that science later discredits. Second, the language used by the majority attacking SCOTUS to explain why they relied on the Hawaii state constitution and not Federal jurisprudence is quite shocking. (Righteous IM (not so) HO, but shocking). This opinion is a must read for anyone litigating a prior conviction based on what we now know is junk science.

The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct.