NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-AUG-2025 07:51 AM Dkt. 61 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES S. OSAKI, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX(1))
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant James S. Osaki appeals from the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's October 18, 2023 "Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part [His] Motion to Dismiss Indictment" (October 18,
2023 Order). 1 (Formatting altered.) On appeal, Osaki contends
the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the case
without prejudice. We affirm.
1 The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
A grand jury indicted Osaki on two felony counts of
methamphetamine-related offenses, among other counts. The
circuit court issued a bench warrant on October 11, 2021.
Twenty-two months later, on August 23, 2023, the bench warrant
was served. Osaki appeared in court, pled not guilty, and moved
to dismiss the indictment.
In moving to dismiss the indictment, Osaki argued the
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi's delay in serving the
warrant was unnecessary and violated Hawai‘i Rules of Penal
Procedure (HRPP) Rule 9. HRPP Rule 9(c)(3)(i) (requiring a
warrant be "executed without unnecessary delay"). Osaki
requested the indictment be dismissed with prejudice. In
response, the State argued that if there was unnecessary delay,
the balance of interests favored dismissal without prejudice.
The circuit court dismissed the indictment and did so
without prejudice. In determining the dismissal should be
without prejudice, the circuit court found that the "State's
interest in prosecuting serious drug offenses is strong and
outweighs the interests of the Defendant[,]" and the "Defendant
did not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of this
delay." Osaki appealed.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below and affirm.
Osaki contends the dismissal should have been with
prejudice. He argues that a "[d]ismissal for the unnecessary
and inexcusable delay is final and ends the case[,]" and "[o]nce
the rule has been violated, the prosecution should not be
allowed to revive the case." Osaki further reasons that
"[d]ismissal without prejudice gives little incentive for the
prosecution to comply with the rule and timely serve
warrants[,]" leaving the case hanging over his head.
We review the circuit court's dismissal without
prejudice for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lei, 95 Hawai‘i
278, 281, 21 P.3d 880, 883 (2001). A court abuses its
discretion when it "clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or
disregards rules or principles of law or practice" to the
defendant's substantial detriment. Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
In criminal cases, the court may use its inherent
power to dismiss a case for failing to prosecute with due
diligence. State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i 33, 37, 889 P.2d 1092,
1096 (App. 1995); State v. Kleefield, 142 Hawai‘i 357, 418 P.3d
1213, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2018 WL 2439096, at *1 (App. May 31,
2018) (SDO). In dismissing a case with prejudice, the court
should set forth its reasons so the "reviewing court may
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
accurately assess whether the trial court duly exercised its
discretion." Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 38, 889 P.2d at 1097. This
necessarily applies to dismissing a case without prejudice. Id.
at 37-38 n.10, 889 P.2d at 1097-96 n.10; Kleefield, 2018 WL
2439096, at *1 ("A trial court has the inherent power to dismiss
a charge with or without prejudice for the failure to prosecute
with due diligence, but should issue written findings setting
forth its reasons.").
In making its findings, the court "should consider the
appropriate factors depending upon the grounds for dismissal."
Kleefield, 2018 WL 2439096, at *1. If the ground for dismissal
is the violation of HRPP Rule 9, the analysis requires
"balancing of the interest of the state against fundamental
fairness to a defendant with the added ingredient of the orderly
functioning of the court system[.]" Id. (cleaned up) (quoting
Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 37-38, 889 P.2d at 1096-97 (citing State v.
Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (1982))).
Here, the circuit court granted Osaki's motion to
dismiss. 2 And, in dismissing the case, the circuit court
2 Osaki relies on two cases, State v. Owens and Lei, in which the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court "reversed" the trial courts' judgments on the grounds that the trial courts abused their discretion in failing to dismiss the charges based on HRPP Rule 9. State v. Owens, 116 Hawaiʻi 172, 173, 172 P.3d 484, 485 (2007); Lei, 95 Hawai‘i at 279, 21 P.3d at 881. Osaki contends that "reversal," in those cases, constituted dismissal with prejudice. We note that the procedural posture of Owens and Lei is different. In Owens and Lei, the trial courts denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Owens, 116 Hawaiʻi at
(continued . . .)
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
correctly stated it was required to balance the State's interest
against fundamental fairness to Osaki, with the added ingredient
of the court's orderly function. Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 37-38, 889
P.2d at 1096-97.
As to the State's interest, the circuit court found
that the State possessed a strong interest in prosecuting the
serious drug offenses charged.
As to fairness to Osaki, the circuit court found that
Osaki did not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of the
delay. 3 See State v. Owens, 116 Hawai‘i 172, 178, 172 P.3d 484,
490 (2007) (considering prejudice to defendant where defendant
"maintained there was a violation of his due process rights[,]"
and the passage of time "inhibited his ability to confront any
witnesses against him and the fading of memory that accompanies
the passage of time made it more difficult to defend himself").
Osaki challenges this finding but does not point to where in the
record he alleged to the circuit court that he suffered
prejudice. Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4).
(. . . continued)
173, 172 P.3d at 485; Lei, 95 Hawai‘i at 279, 21 P.3d at 881.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-AUG-2025 07:51 AM Dkt. 61 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES S. OSAKI, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX(1))
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant James S. Osaki appeals from the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's October 18, 2023 "Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part [His] Motion to Dismiss Indictment" (October 18,
2023 Order). 1 (Formatting altered.) On appeal, Osaki contends
the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the case
without prejudice. We affirm.
1 The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
A grand jury indicted Osaki on two felony counts of
methamphetamine-related offenses, among other counts. The
circuit court issued a bench warrant on October 11, 2021.
Twenty-two months later, on August 23, 2023, the bench warrant
was served. Osaki appeared in court, pled not guilty, and moved
to dismiss the indictment.
In moving to dismiss the indictment, Osaki argued the
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi's delay in serving the
warrant was unnecessary and violated Hawai‘i Rules of Penal
Procedure (HRPP) Rule 9. HRPP Rule 9(c)(3)(i) (requiring a
warrant be "executed without unnecessary delay"). Osaki
requested the indictment be dismissed with prejudice. In
response, the State argued that if there was unnecessary delay,
the balance of interests favored dismissal without prejudice.
The circuit court dismissed the indictment and did so
without prejudice. In determining the dismissal should be
without prejudice, the circuit court found that the "State's
interest in prosecuting serious drug offenses is strong and
outweighs the interests of the Defendant[,]" and the "Defendant
did not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of this
delay." Osaki appealed.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below and affirm.
Osaki contends the dismissal should have been with
prejudice. He argues that a "[d]ismissal for the unnecessary
and inexcusable delay is final and ends the case[,]" and "[o]nce
the rule has been violated, the prosecution should not be
allowed to revive the case." Osaki further reasons that
"[d]ismissal without prejudice gives little incentive for the
prosecution to comply with the rule and timely serve
warrants[,]" leaving the case hanging over his head.
We review the circuit court's dismissal without
prejudice for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lei, 95 Hawai‘i
278, 281, 21 P.3d 880, 883 (2001). A court abuses its
discretion when it "clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or
disregards rules or principles of law or practice" to the
defendant's substantial detriment. Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
In criminal cases, the court may use its inherent
power to dismiss a case for failing to prosecute with due
diligence. State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i 33, 37, 889 P.2d 1092,
1096 (App. 1995); State v. Kleefield, 142 Hawai‘i 357, 418 P.3d
1213, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2018 WL 2439096, at *1 (App. May 31,
2018) (SDO). In dismissing a case with prejudice, the court
should set forth its reasons so the "reviewing court may
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
accurately assess whether the trial court duly exercised its
discretion." Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 38, 889 P.2d at 1097. This
necessarily applies to dismissing a case without prejudice. Id.
at 37-38 n.10, 889 P.2d at 1097-96 n.10; Kleefield, 2018 WL
2439096, at *1 ("A trial court has the inherent power to dismiss
a charge with or without prejudice for the failure to prosecute
with due diligence, but should issue written findings setting
forth its reasons.").
In making its findings, the court "should consider the
appropriate factors depending upon the grounds for dismissal."
Kleefield, 2018 WL 2439096, at *1. If the ground for dismissal
is the violation of HRPP Rule 9, the analysis requires
"balancing of the interest of the state against fundamental
fairness to a defendant with the added ingredient of the orderly
functioning of the court system[.]" Id. (cleaned up) (quoting
Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 37-38, 889 P.2d at 1096-97 (citing State v.
Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (1982))).
Here, the circuit court granted Osaki's motion to
dismiss. 2 And, in dismissing the case, the circuit court
2 Osaki relies on two cases, State v. Owens and Lei, in which the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court "reversed" the trial courts' judgments on the grounds that the trial courts abused their discretion in failing to dismiss the charges based on HRPP Rule 9. State v. Owens, 116 Hawaiʻi 172, 173, 172 P.3d 484, 485 (2007); Lei, 95 Hawai‘i at 279, 21 P.3d at 881. Osaki contends that "reversal," in those cases, constituted dismissal with prejudice. We note that the procedural posture of Owens and Lei is different. In Owens and Lei, the trial courts denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Owens, 116 Hawaiʻi at
(continued . . .)
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
correctly stated it was required to balance the State's interest
against fundamental fairness to Osaki, with the added ingredient
of the court's orderly function. Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i at 37-38, 889
P.2d at 1096-97.
As to the State's interest, the circuit court found
that the State possessed a strong interest in prosecuting the
serious drug offenses charged.
As to fairness to Osaki, the circuit court found that
Osaki did not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of the
delay. 3 See State v. Owens, 116 Hawai‘i 172, 178, 172 P.3d 484,
490 (2007) (considering prejudice to defendant where defendant
"maintained there was a violation of his due process rights[,]"
and the passage of time "inhibited his ability to confront any
witnesses against him and the fading of memory that accompanies
the passage of time made it more difficult to defend himself").
Osaki challenges this finding but does not point to where in the
record he alleged to the circuit court that he suffered
prejudice. Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4).
(. . . continued)
173, 172 P.3d at 485; Lei, 95 Hawai‘i at 279, 21 P.3d at 881. Here, the circuit court granted Osaki's motion to dismiss, and in so doing, set forth specific findings as to why it was exercising its discretion to dismiss without prejudice. 3 Although the circuit court placed the statement that Osaki "did not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of this delay" under the "Conclusions of Law" heading, it is a factual finding.
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Although the circuit court made no specific finding
regarding the orderly function of the courts, it rejected
Osaki's argument that dismissal with prejudice was warranted.
And the circuit court set forth its reasons in
writing.
The circuit court did not clearly exceed the bounds of
reason or disregard principles of law. Thus, the circuit court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without
prejudice.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's
October 18, 2023 Order dismissing the case without prejudice.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 28, 2025.
On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Deputy Public Defender /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Gerald K. Enriques, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge County of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.