If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Honolulu, Hawaii criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with DUI.


Warner was charged on December 12, 2019, and appeared for his arraignment on December 26, 2019. After two continuances, the pretrial conference was held on March 4, 2020, and the district court set May 6, 2020, as the bench trial date. The parties then stipulated to continuing the trial to, and trial commenced on, June 17, 2020. Warner, however, filed his Motion to Suppress on July 20, 2020, more than five months after his arraignment and thirty-three days after trial commenced. And nothing in the record indicates that Warner requested an extension of time to file his suppression motion.

Moreover, although Warner argues that constitutional implications should trump HRPP Rule 12(b) time limits, suppression motions typically raise constitutional issues as the "motion to suppress was originally conceived under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to protect an accused against illegal searches and seizures[.]" State v. Kirn, 70 Haw. 206, 208, 767 P.2d 1238, 1239 (1989). Given that a purpose of the motion to suppress is for the defendant to ask the court to exclude certain evidence from trial that he or she believes was seized in violation of his or her constitutional rights, the existence of constitutional issues does not render procedural filing rules void. See State v. Kim, 68 Haw. 286, 288 n.4, 711 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.4 (1985) (noting Rule 12(b)'s applicability to a motion to suppress based on constitutional grounds, and that under HRPP Rule 12(b)(3), "the motion was untimely and should have been made prior to trial").

Finally, the district court's decision to deny Warner's Motion to Suppress as untimely was consistent with HRPP Rule 12's purpose. "The 1975 commentary to the HRPP makes clear that HRPP Rule 12(e)'s mandate that courts decide suppression motions before trial has a specific purpose in the course of criminal proceedings: to preserve the State's right to appeal if the court grants the defendant's suppression motion." Chang, 144 Hawai'i at 548, 445 P.3d at 129; see also State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. 438, 441, 746 P.2d 568, 570 (1987) (explaining that, in a criminal case, the State may "only appeal in those limited instances established by HRS § 641-13").
State v. Warner (Haw. App. 2022)

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: