State v. Taylor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-MAR-2026
08:04 AM
Dkt. 55 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KELEIONALANI TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1FFC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaiʻi (State) appeals

from the Family Court of the First Circuit's (family court)

March 7, 2024 "Order Granting Defendant[-Appellee] Keleionalani

Taylor's [(Taylor)] Motion to Dismiss, Filed February 6, 2024"

(Dismissal Order). 1

1 The Honorable Jordon J. Kimura presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On March 31, 2023, the State charged Taylor by

Complaint with four counts of Custodial Interference in the

Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 707-

727(1)(a) (2014). In February 2024, Taylor moved to dismiss the

Complaint with prejudice, alleging violation of her right to a

speedy trial pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 48. The family court heard Taylor's motion to dismiss, and

entered its Dismissal Order, which dismissed the Complaint with

prejudice.

On appeal, the State raises a single point of error,

contending that the family court abused its discretion by

dismissing the State's prosecution with prejudice rather than

without prejudice. 2 Upon careful review of the record, briefs,

and relevant legal authorities, and having given due

consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by

the parties, we resolve the State's contention of error as

follows.

We review a trial court's decision to dismiss a case

with or without prejudice for abuse of discretion. State v.

Fukuoka, 141 Hawaiʻi 48, 55, 404 P.3d 314, 321 (2017). As the

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has instructed,

In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without
prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of
the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the

2 The State does not challenge the family court's dismissal of the
prosecution as untimely pursuant to HRPP Rule 48(b).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

facts and the circumstances of the case which led to the
dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the
administration of this chapter and on the administration of
justice[ (Estencion factors)].

. . . .

In analyzing whether to dismiss a case with or without
prejudice under HRPP Rule 48 and Estencion, the trial court
must "clearly articulate the effect of the Estencion
factors and any other factor it considered in rendering its
decision. Accordingly, the court must explain the effect
of the Estencion factors on its reasoning to dismiss a
charge with or without prejudice. The court is not
required, however, to make a determination as to whether
each individual factor weighs in favor of dismissal with or
without prejudice.

The trial court must therefore provide an "explanation of
its consideration of the Estencion factors[,]" and any
other factors it considered, "and the basis for its
decision."

Id. at 55-56, 404 P.3d at 321-22 (emphasis added) (cleaned up)

(citing State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 269, 625 P.2d 1040,

1044 (1981)).

Here, the record reflects that, in dismissing the

State's prosecution with prejudice, the family court did not

provide any "explanation of its consideration of the Estencion

factors, and any other factors it considered, and the basis for

its decision." See id. at 56, 404 P.3d at 322 (cleaned up).

Absent the family court's articulation of the basis for its

ruling, we are unable to meaningfully review whether the family

court abused its discretion.

We therefore vacate the Dismissal Order, and instruct

the family court, on remand, to make appropriate findings of

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

fact and conclusions of law that demonstrate its consideration

of the Estencion factors, and the basis for its decision.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 30, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Stephen K. Tsushima,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Mark S. Kawata, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee.

4