In re: B.M.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JAN-2025
07:45 AM
Dkt. 52 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M., Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(FC-J NO. 94575)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant State of Hawai‘i appeals from the

Family Court of the Second Circuit's (1) July 19, 2021 order

granting Respondent-Appellee B.M.'s motion to dismiss and

(2) September 9, 2021 findings of fact, conclusions of law

(COL), and order denying the State's motion for reconsideration. 1

In 2021, the State petitioned the family court

alleging B.M., then 24 years old, violated the law while he was

a minor. In particular, the petition asserted four counts of

1 The Honorable James R. Rouse presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sexual assault in the first degree and one count of sexual

assault in the third degree. B.M. moved to dismiss the

petition, which the family court granted with prejudice. The

State moved for reconsideration, which the family court denied.

On appeal, the State contends the family court "erred

when it concluded that it had no punishment or treatment options

for an adult charged for conduct that occurred when the adult

was a child[,]" specifically challenging COL 3. (Formatting

altered.)

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below, and vacate and remand.

In COL 3, the family court concluded:

"The Court has no punishment or treatment options

for an adult that is being charged for an alleged

conduct that occurred when he was a child."

This conclusion was wrong. See State v. Roman, 119 Hawai‘i 468,

477, 199 P.3d 57, 66 (2008) (explaining that conclusions of law

are reviewed under the right/wrong standard).

The family court has exclusive original jurisdiction

in cases where any person is alleged to have violated the law

before turning 18 years old:

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 571-11 Jurisdiction; children. Except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, the court shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction in proceedings:

(1) Concerning any person who is alleged to have
committed an act prior to achieving eighteen years of age
which would constitute a violation or attempted violation
of any federal, state, or local law or municipal
ordinance. . . .

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-11 (2006) (formatting

altered, some emphases added). The family court retains such

jurisdiction after a minor turns 18 years old:

§ 571-13 Retention of jurisdiction. Except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, jurisdiction obtained by the
court in the case of a minor may be retained by it, for the
purposes of this chapter, after the minor becomes eighteen
years of age until the full term for which any order
entered shall have expired. Further, in the case of any
person who is alleged to have committed an offense under
section 571-11 prior to reaching eighteen years of age, the
court shall have jurisdiction after the person becomes
eighteen for the purpose of holding hearings and/or
entering orders of disposition concerning the alleged
offenses or for the purpose of making and issuing orders
for pre-trial detention of persons aged eighteen years or
older to an adult correctional facility, when the person is
alleged to have committed an act or acts during the
person's minority that would constitute a violation of
section 571-11(1). This section shall not be construed,
however, to confer any jurisdiction upon the family court
over a person for any criminal act committed after the
person achieves eighteen years of age.

HRS § 571-13 (2006) (some emphasis added).

And where a person is adjudicated as a law violator

under HRS § 571-11(1), the family court may order restitution or

community service:

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 571-48 Decree, if informal adjustment or diversion to
a private or community agency or program has not been
effected. When a minor is found by the court to come
within section 571-11, the court shall so decree and in its
decree shall make a finding of the facts upon which the
court exercises its jurisdiction over the minor. Upon the
decree the court, by order duly entered, shall proceed as
follows:

. . . .

(11) The court may order any person adjudicated pursuant
to section 571-11(1) to make restitution of money or
services to any victim who suffers loss as a result of the
child's action, or to render community service[.]

HRS § 571-48(11) (2006, Supp. 2008) (formatting altered, some

emphases added).

Because HRS § 571-48 allows the family court to order

"any person" adjudicated under HRS § 571-11(1) to make

restitution or render community service, and "any person"

necessarily includes "an adult that is being charged for an

alleged conduct that occurred when he was a child[,]" COL 3 was

wrong. Thus, to the extent the family court relied on COL 3,

COL 3 was not a valid basis for dismissing the case with

prejudice and denying the State's motion for reconsideration.

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the family court's

(1) July 19, 2021 order granting B.M.'s motion to dismiss and

(2) September 9, 2021 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

order denying the State's motion for reconsideration. We remand

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

this case to the family court for further proceedings consistent

with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 16, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Gerald K. Enriques,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
County of Maui, Associate Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Associate Judge
Bradley J. Sova,
Deputy Public Defenders,
for Respondent-Appellee.

5