CourtListener 10856438

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-MAY-2026
07:55 AM
Dkt. 70 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OSCAR KANOA, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Gluck, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Oscar Kanoa (Kanoa) appeals from
the June 18, 2025 "Findings of Fact [(FOFs)], Conclusions of Law
[(COLs)], and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant Oscar Kanoa's Motion to Reduce Bail" (Order) entered
by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court). 1 In
his Motion to Reduce Bail (Motion), Kanoa asked for bail to be
reduced from $2,000,000.00 to $100,000.00; the Circuit Court
granted the Motion in part, reducing bail to $750,000.00. On

1 The Honorable Rowena A. Somerville presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appeal, Kanoa contends the Circuit Court erred in setting bail
at an unaffordable amount in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 804-9 (Supp. 2019).
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 affirm.
In opposing Kanoa's Motion in Circuit Court,
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi (State) argued that Kanoa was
the sole owner of a home valued at $666,400.00. 2 Kanoa did not
dispute that he owned a home. At the hearing on the Motion,
Kanoa was uncertain as to the value of (and his equity in) the
home, but he offered to surrender the deed in lieu of bail. As
an alternative, Kanoa requested bail in the amount of
$200,000.00.
After hearing the parties' arguments, the Circuit
Court ruled:
[A]s you have all pointed out, I need to consider pursuant
to State versus Carter [and HRS §] 804-9. And the amount of
bail rests in the discretion of the trial court and shall
be set in a reasonable amount based upon all available
information, including the offense alleged, which is
Manslaughter, an A felony, the possible punishment upon
conviction, which is 20 years, and [Kanoa]'s financial
ability to afford bail. And the bail amount should be
determined as not to suffer the wealthy to escape by the
payment of the pecuniary penalty nor to render the
privilege useless to the poor.

I have taken into all of the considerations of
[HRS §] 804-9. This is not a no bail situation. Bail has
been set in this case. So based on all of those
considerations and my determination that [Kanoa] does have
assets that could be used for his release, I will grant the
Defense motion. However, it will [not be] $100,000. But it
will be up to $750,000. Grant that in part.

2 The State based this valuation on the publicly available tax
assessment of the property, as listed on the website for the City and County
of Honolulu's Real Property Assessment Division.

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

The Circuit Court asked Kanoa's counsel to prepare the order.
The written Order, entered on June 18, 2025, contained the
following FOF: "[Kanoa] has assets sufficient to post monetary
bail in the amount of $750,000.00." The Order also contained
the following COL:
1. Per State v. Carter, 154 Haw[aiʻi] 96, 546 P.3d 1210
([App.] 2024), bail must be set in accordance with
section 804-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which
requires that bail "be set in a reasonable amount based
upon all available information, including the offense
alleged, the possible punishment upon conviction" and
"should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy to
escape by the payment of a pecuniary penalty, nor to
render the privilege useless to the poor."

Kanoa filed a timely appeal, permissible pursuant to
the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. See
Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 97 n.3, 546 P.3d at 1211 n.3 (explaining
that an order denying bail is an appealable pretrial motion).
Bail amount: "It is settled that the determination of
the amount of bail rests peculiarly within the discretion of the
trial court. An appellate court should not disturb or interfere
with the exercise of such discretion, unless it is clearly
abused." State v. Henley, 136 Hawaiʻi 471, 478, 363 P.3d 319,
326 (2015) (citation omitted); accord Carter, 154 Hawaiʻi at 101,
546 P.3d at 1215.
FOFs: "The circuit court's [FOFs] are subject to the
clearly erroneous standard of review[.]" State v. Brown, 157
Hawaiʻi 354, 367, 577 P.3d 1045, 1058 (2025), recon. denied,
No. SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 2936869 (Haw. Oct. 16, 2025). "A
[FOF] is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial
evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial
evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is
nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made." Id. (citation omitted).

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

Kanoa's sole point of error on appeal is that the
Circuit Court abused its discretion in setting bail at
$750,000.00 when his home is (or was) valued at $666,400.00. 3
Kanoa argues that the bail amount is unreasonable because it
exceeds his assets.
As the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has explained, "A person
charged with a crime may purchase a bail bond from a
professional bondsperson for five to fifteen percent of the
total amount of bail set." State v. Nelson, 140 Hawaiʻi 123,
127, 398 P.3d 712, 716 (2017) (footnote and citation omitted).
Thus, bail may be available to a criminal defendant – and
therefore reasonable – even when the amount of bail exceeds the
criminal defendant's assets. This is consistent with HRS § 804-
9's focus on affordability, rather than assets:
The amount of bail rests in the discretion of the . . .
judge . . . and shall be set in a reasonable amount based
upon all available information, including the offense
alleged, the possible punishment upon conviction, and the
defendant's financial ability to afford bail. The bail
amount should be so determined as not to suffer the wealthy
to escape by the payment of a pecuniary penalty, nor to
render the privilege useless to the poor.

(Emphasis added.)
Here, the Circuit Court complied with the plain
language of HRS § 804-9 by expressly considering Kanoa's ability
to afford bail: it found that "[Kanoa] has assets sufficient to
post monetary bail in the amount of $750,000.00." The Circuit
Court's FOF is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Kanoa has not presented a persuasive argument as to why the

3 It is undisputed that the real property tax assessed value of the
home at the time of the hearing was $666,400.00. While the home's market
value may have been slightly more or less than this amount, there is nothing
in the record to suggest that the home's assessed value was not a reasonable
approximation of its market value.

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

Circuit Court clearly erred in finding that Kanoa could afford
bail of $750,000.00, nor has Kanoa demonstrated that the Circuit
Court abused its discretion in so doing.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Circuit Court's
June 18, 2025 Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 8, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Emlyn H. Higa,
Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Robert T. Nakatsuji,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Associate Judge