Townsend v. Kubo

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: August 26, 2010
• Docket: 30678
• Status: Published

Opinion

LAW L§BF§A~Y*`»`»§`Y'

No. 30678 IN THE sUPREME coURT or THE sTATE oF HAwA1T . . 33 LoR1 TowNsEND, Pet1t1oner, §§ ¢"?;‘ VS. , , AB’ ..“i": THE HoNoRABLE EDwARD H. KUBo, JUDGE or THE cl °" rr coURT oF THE FIRsT c1RcUIT, sTATE or HAwAi‘ImW §§ F¥ sTATE or HAwAl‘:, Respondents. 55 YW <.`.3 oRIGINAL PRocEEDING (Fc-cR No. 10-1-1595) oRDER Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba,

Upon consideration of petitioner Lori Townsend’s

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the respondent judge's August l8, 2010 ruling that

petitioner does not have a bona fide Fifth Amendment privilege was not beyond the bounds of reason or in disregard of the law permitting the respondent judge to appraise petitioner’s claim of

privilege by the respondent judge’s personal perception of the

l0-l-l595. See State v. KuDihea, 80

peculiarities of FC-CR No. ll27-28 (l996).

909 P.2d ll22,

The denial

Hawafi 307, 312-l3, of petitioner’s motion to quash the prosecution’s subpoena was

not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion and consequently, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. ee Kema v.

91 HawaiU.200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (l999) (A

Gaddis, writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately Such writs are

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.

not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.). Therefore,

lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

IT lS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of the proceedings in FC-CR No. 10-l-1595 is lifted.

DATED: Honolulu, HawaiUq August 25, 20l0. bmuAm4Q“r¢mKQ44@d5

/v-vc-~§

@-» s. D~»aeg/Q\»