State v. Osaki

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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

6