Case Details

Court

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026 – 10:00 A.M. 

NO. SCWC-23-0000412

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA, also known as AREN AHINA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA:
     Richard D. Gronna

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 04/23/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/08/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

On three occasions in late 2019, surveillance video captured an individual throwing rocks at the window of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café in Wailuku, Maui.  Responding Maui Police Department Officer Zachary Kamaka reviewed surveillance video and identified the individual as his former high school substitute teacher, Ahina.  Ahina was subsequently charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with three counts of criminal property damage in the second degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 708-821(1)(b).

Before trial, Ahina’s attorney requested a preliminary Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 104 hearing regarding the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification of Ahina, which the circuit court denied. Officer Kamaka then identified Ahina as the individual depicted in surveillance video damaging windows of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café based on his familiarity with Ahina as his former substitute teacher.  Ahina’s attorney then requested that the jury be given an eyewitness identification.  Concluding that Officer Kamaka was not an eyewitness, the circuit court declined to instruct the jury on eyewitness identification factors.  The jury found Ahina guilty as charged and the circuit court sentenced him to a four-year term of probation.    

Ahina appealed his conviction, challenging in relevant part the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification testimony without a Rule 104 hearing and the circuit court’s omission of an eyewitness testimony jury instruction.  The ICA affirmed the conviction.

This court accepted certiorari as to whether the circuit court erred in (1) admitting Officer Kamaka’s testimony into evidence without a Rule 104 hearing and (2) omitting an instruction to the jury regarding the identification of Ahina.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000498

ROBERT G. GOMES, JR., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee ROBERT G. GOMES, JR.:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Randall S. Nishiyama and Lori N. Tanigawa, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Ronald G. Johnson due to a vacancy, filed 05/21/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/19//26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Johnson, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This is a secondary appeal arising from Respondent/Appellee Employees’ Retirement System, State of Hawai‘i’s (ERS) denial of Petitioner/Appellant Robert G. Gomes, Jr.’s (Gomes) application for service-connected disability retirement.  Under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 88-79, service-connected disability retirement requires a member of the ERS be permanently incapacitated for duty as a result of an accident while in the performance of duty.  The statute further provides that the ERS Medical Board certify the member is incapacitated for further performance of duty at the time of application, and that the incapacity is likely to be permanent.

Gomes worked as a Street Cleaning Supervisor for the County of Hawai‘i.  On July 22, 2019, Gomes filed an application for service-connected disability retirement with ERS arising from a confrontation with a coworker.

The ERS Medical Board found Gomes was not permanently incapacitated and recommended the ERS Board of Trustees deny Gomes’s application, which the ERS Board did.  The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.  Gomes presents one question on certiorari: whether the ICA gravely erred by misinterpreting HRS § 88-79(a)(4)’s “likely to be permanent” language.         

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000606

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAINOA DAMON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant NAINOA DAMON:
     Audrey Stanley

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter K. Kubota due to a vacancy, filed 05/14/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/29/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kubota assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

In 2024, Defendant-Appellant Nainoa Damon (Damon) was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and related firearm charges.  The jury further found that a sentence enhancement should be imposed pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-660.1.  Accordingly, Damon was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed Damon’s conviction.  Damon raises the following questions for decision:

• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court did not deprive Damon of his constitutional right to a fair trial and impartial jury by keeping a juror that was emotional, distraught, and afraid after an outburst in court involving Damon’s relative?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court appropriately allowed evidence of an updated expert report and appropriately allowed two witnesses to testify, when the updated expert report and additional witnesses were disclosed on the eve of trial?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding the jury need not be instructed on mens rea when answering a special interrogatory on the use of a firearm under HRS § 706-660.1?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the record as not sufficiently developed to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective, under the circumstances?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCAP-26-0000550

TREVOR R. OZAWA, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHADD KADOTA, in his official capacity as Acting City Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu; SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer of the State of Hawai‘i, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, and THOMAS WATERS a/k/a TOMMY WATERS, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee TREVOR R. OZAWA:
     Trevor R. Ozawa of the Law Office of Trevor R. Ozawa

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee CHADD KADOTA, in his official capacity as Acting City Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu:
     Duane W.H. Pang and Jacqueline M. De Leeuw Huang, Deputies Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer of the State of Hawai‘i:
     Randall S. Nishiyama, Tiffany R. Chang, and Jung Min Lee, Deputy Attorneys General and Aaron H. Schulaner, General Counsel

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellant Thomas Waters a/k/a Tommy Waters:
     Lex R. Smith, Joseph A. Stewart, Bruce A. Nakamura, and Zachary K. Shikada of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, LLP

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 08/13/26.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 08/13/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Michael K. Soong, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, Circuit Judge Peter T. Cahill, in place of Eddins, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Peter K. Kubota, due to a vacancy, filed 08/13/26.

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 08/13/26.

COURT: Mckenna, Acting C.J. and Ginoza, J., and Circuit Judge Soong, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, Circuit Judge Cahill, in place of Eddins, J. recused, and Circuit Judge Kubota, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This transferred appeal arises from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s order and judgment declaring that Defendant-Appellant Thomas Waters, a/k/a Tommy Waters (Waters) is ineligible to be elected to the office of Councilmember, District IV, City and County of Honolulu for the 2027-2031 term.

Section 3-102 of the Revised Charter of the City & County of Honolulu (Charter) provides, in relevant part, that: “Except as provided in Section 16-122, the regular terms of office of councilmembers shall be four years beginning at twelve o’clock meridian on the second day of January following their election. . . . No person shall be elected to the office of councilmember for more than two consecutive four-year terms.”

On January 25, 2019, this court invalidated the November 6, 2018 nonpartisan second special election for councilmember for District IV, City and County of Honolulu. It is undisputed that Waters was elected District IV councilmember in a subsequent April 2019 special election and was sworn into office in May 2019. Waters was re-elected in November 2022.

In this case before the circuit court, Plaintiff-Appellee Trevor R. Ozawa sought a declaration that Waters may not be elected as District IV councilmember for the 2027-2031 term under Section 3-102 of the Charter.

The circuit court concluded that Waters is ineligible to be elected as District IV councilmember for the 2027-2031 term.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000533 (CONSOLIDATED WITH SCWC-24-0000534, SCWC-24-0000535, SCWC-24-0000536)

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANIELLE K. KAHELE, also known as DANIELLE K. KANEAO and HEATHER TULL, also known as HEATHER O. TULL, and HEATHER OWEN TULL, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, and ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING, Petitioner/Real Party In Interest- Appellant.

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Real Party In Interest-Appellant ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING:

     Benjamin E. Lowenthal of the Law Office of Benjamin E. Lowenthal, LLC

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Dean A. Soma and Chad K.L. Au, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order consolidating SCWC-24-0000533, SCWC-24-0000534, SCWC-24-0000535, and SCWC-24-0000536 for disposition, filed 06/16/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Michelle L. Drewyer, due to a vacancy, filed 07/21/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/11/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Drewyer, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

All in 1 Bonding (All in 1) posted Heather Tull’s bail in four criminal cases.  When Tull failed to appear for her trial call, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit issued a bench warrant and ordered the bonds forfeited.  On May 28, 2024, All in 1 moved to set the forfeiture aside.  In an attached declaration, its attorney stated that the surety was actively searching for Tull.  It asked for a June 2024 hearing on the motion.

The circuit court set a hearing for July 3, then reset the hearing to July 12.  Two days before the hearing, Tull was arrested and in custody.  The court denied All in 1’s motion, reasoning that Tull was arrested “forty days after the search period expiration date of May 31, 2024.”

The Intermediate Court of Appeal (ICA) affirmed.  It held that “good cause” under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 is not satisfied where the defendant was surrendered after the end of the thirty-day search period, absent a showing of a satisfactory reason for the defendant’s failure to appear when required.

This court accepted certiorari.  All in 1 asks whether the ICA erred “when it ruled that the surety’s timely filed motion to set aside the judgment and the apprehension of the defendant before the hearing on the motion did not matter because ‘good cause’ under HRS § 804-51 requires the defendant to be apprehended within thirty days from service of the forfeiture judgment?”

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000323

NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY, Respondents/Respondents-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Punahou School
Dilingham Hall 
1601 Punahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96822

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai:

        Cheryl Nolan, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. and Jake Davis of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Respondents/Respondents-Appellees CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY:

        Jacqueline M. De Leeuw Huang and Patricia A.V. Sendao, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 05/15/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/10/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NhRP) petitioned the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, two Asian elephants residing at the Honolulu Zoo.  The petition sought an evidentiary hearing to show cause why the elephants should not be released “to an elephant sanctuary accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.”

The City and County of Honolulu, Department of Enterprise Services (DES), Director of DES Dita Holifield, and Honolulu Zoo Director John Berry moved to dismiss the petition.  The circuit court granted the motion and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed.

In affirming the circuit court, the ICA held that Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 660 supersedes the common law writ of habeas corpus, and under that chapter, elephants are not “persons” for whom relief is available.  NhRP subsequently appealed to this court.

There are two issues before the court:

1. Does HRS chapter 660 supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus?
2. If HRS chapter 660 does not supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus, does the common law writ apply to non-human animals such as Mari and Vaigai?