State v. Marquez ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    05-MAR-2021
    07:51 AM
    Dkt. 51 SO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
    PRECIOUS MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellee
    APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (CASE NO. 1FFC-XX-XXXXXXX)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
    Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai#i (State) appeals
    from the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, entered on May 29,
    2019 (Dismissal Order), in the Family Court of the First Circuit
    (family court).1/
    On May 13, 2019, the State filed a criminal complaint
    charging Defendant-Appellee Precious Marquez (Marquez) with two
    counts of felony Abuse of Family or Household Members, in
    violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906(1) and (9)
    (2014 & Supp. 2018)2/ (Felony Abuse).          The charges stemmed from a
    1/
    The Honorable Na#unanikina#u A. Kamali#i presided.
    2/
    At the time of the alleged offense in 2019, HRS § 709-906 stated,
    in relevant part:
    Abuse of family of household members; penalty. (1) It
    shall be unlawful for any person, singly or in concert, to
    physically abuse a family or household member . . . .
    For the purposes of this section:
    . . . .
    "Family or household member":
    (continued...)
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    May 9, 2019 incident in which Marquez allegedly struck the
    complaining witness (CW) in the presence of their one- and three-
    year-old children while at a Target store in Kapolei. Following
    a preliminary hearing on May 29, 2019, the family court dismissed
    the complaint with prejudice for lack of probable cause.
    The State contends that the family court erred in: (1)
    dismissing the complaint with, rather than without, prejudice;
    and (2) failing to provide findings supporting the Dismissal
    Order. The State requests that the Dismissal Order be vacated
    and the case be assigned to a different judge on remand.
    After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
    legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
    raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we vacate the
    Dismissal Order and remand this case to the family court with
    instructions, for the reasons set forth below.
    "The use of a trial court's inherent power to dismiss a
    criminal charge with prejudice is reviewed for abuse of
    discretion." State v. Kapalski, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 
    2019 WL 2417753
    , at *5 (Haw. App. June 10, 2019) (mem.) (citing State v.
    Kostron, No. 30217, 
    2012 WL 4478586
    , at *2 (Haw. App. Sept. 28,
    2012) (SDO)). "The trial court abuses its discretion when it
    clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or
    principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a
    party litigant." State v. Plichta, 116 Hawai#i 200, 214, 
    172 P.3d 512
    , 526 (2007) (quoting State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai#i 405,
    411, 
    984 P.2d 1231
    , 1237 (1999)).
    2/
    (...continued)
    (a)   Means spouses or reciprocal beneficiaries,
    former spouses or reciprocal beneficiaries,
    persons in a dating relationship as defined
    under section 586-1, persons who have a child in
    common, parents, children, persons related by
    consanguinity, and persons jointly residing or
    formerly residing in the same dwelling unit[.]
    . . . .
    (9) Where physical abuse occurs in the presence of a
    minor, as defined in section 706-606.4, and the minor is a
    family or household member less than fourteen years of age,
    abuse of a family or household member is a class C felony.
    HRS § 709-906(1), (9) (2014 & Supp 2018).
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    At the preliminary hearing in this case, the State
    offered the CW's testimony in support of the Felony Abuse
    charges. Following that testimony, the family court stated that
    it did not find the CW credible, and thus did not find probable
    cause to believe that the charged offenses had been committed and
    that Marquez had committed the charged offenses. The family
    court thereafter dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
    The State does not dispute the family court's finding
    of no probable cause, but argues that the court abused its
    discretion in dismissing the Felony Abuse charges with prejudice.
    The supreme court has explained the purpose of a
    preliminary hearing as follows:
    "The primary purpose of a preliminary hearing is to
    ascertain whether there is reasonable ground to believe that
    a crime has been committed and whether there is just cause
    to believe the defendant committed it." 21 Am. Jur. 2d
    Criminal Law, § 413, at 685 (1981).
    The credibility of witnesses at a preliminary hearing
    is a proper consideration for the judge in determining
    probable cause. Moreover, the credibility of
    witnesses at the preliminary hearing is a question of
    fact within the province of the committing judge to
    determine and neither the trial court nor an appellate
    court may substitute its judgment for his or hers on
    such question.
    Id. at 684.
    Reed v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 76 Hawai#i 219, 228, 
    873 P.2d 98
    , 107 (1994) (brackets and ellipsis omitted). "If from the
    evidence [adduced at a preliminary hearing] it appears that there
    is probable cause to believe that the felony charged, or an
    included felony, has been committed and that the defendant
    committed it, the court shall commit the defendant to answer in
    the circuit court; otherwise, the court shall discharge the
    defendant." Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 5(c)(6)
    (emphasis added).
    Thus, where, as here, the court does not find probable
    cause to hold the defendant to answer the charge, the remedy
    under HRPP Rule 5(c)(6) is to discharge the defendant, not to
    dismiss the charge with prejudice. We therefore view the family
    court's dismissal with prejudice as an exercise of its inherent
    power to "administer justice." State v. Moriwake, 
    65 Haw. 47
    ,
    55, 
    647 P.2d 705
    , 712 (1982); accord State v. Alvey, 
    67 Haw. 49
    ,
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    57, 
    678 P.2d 5
    , 10 (1984) (holding that the trial court has
    inherent power to dismiss a criminal charge with prejudice under
    certain circumstances).
    The family court's power in this respect "is not
    unbounded." Kapalski, 
    2019 WL 2417753
    , at *6. "The court must
    balance the interests of the state against fundamental fairness
    to the defendant, with the added ingredient of the orderly
    functioning of the court system." 
    Id.
     (citing Moriwake, 65
    Hawai#i at 55-56, 
    647 P.2d at 712
    ). "For example, the court acts
    within its discretion when dismissing charges after two
    mistrials," but "abuses that discretion when dismissing prior to
    the first trial for comity or judicial economy absent a due
    process violation or misconduct that represents a serious threat
    to the integrity of the judicial process." 
    Id.
     (emphasis added)
    (comparing Moriwake, 65 Hawai#i at 57, 
    647 P.2d at
    713 with
    Alvey, 67 Haw. at 57, 
    678 P.2d at 10-11
    ).
    Here, the family court did not make factual findings
    supporting the Dismissal Order. Nonetheless, the record is
    sufficient for this court to make a determination of whether the
    family court abused its discretion in dismissing the Felony Abuse
    charges with prejudice. See Kapalski, 
    2019 WL 2417753
    , at *7
    (citing State v. Hern, 133 Hawai#i 59, 64-65, 
    323 P.3d 1241
    ,
    1246- 47 (App. 2013)). Specifically, the family court stated on
    the record that it was dismissing the charges for lack of
    probable cause, because it did not find the CW credible. There
    was no mention or suggestion, and we find no evidence in the
    record, of a due process violation or any misconduct representing
    a serious threat to the integrity of the judicial process.
    On this record, we conclude that the family court
    abused its discretion in dismissing the Felony Abuse charges with
    prejudice. Given our conclusion, we do not reach the State's
    second issue on appeal. In addition, the State's request that
    this case be remanded to a different judge is denied.
    Therefore,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal with
    Prejudice, entered on May 29, 2019, in the Family Court of the
    First Circuit, is vacated, and this case is remanded to the
    4
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    family court with instructions to dismiss the Felony Abuse
    Charges without prejudice.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 5, 2021.
    On the briefs:
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Chad M. Kumagai,                      Presiding Judge
    Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
    City & County of Honolulu,
    for Plaintiff-Appellant.              /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    Jon N. Ikenaga,
    Deputy Public Defender,
    for Defendant-Appellee.               /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
    Associate Judge
    5