prospective rule in Hawaii

2023Additionally, in Lewis, the supreme court adopted a prospective requirement that, "prior to the start of trial, trial courts must '(1) inform the defendant of his or her personal right to testify or not to testify and (2) alert the defendant that if he or she has not testified by the end of the trial, the court will briefly question the defendant to ensure that the decision not to testify is the defendant's own decision.'" State v. Monteil, 134 Hawai#i 361, 371, 341 P.3d 567, 577 (2014) (quoting Lewis, 94 Hawai#i at 297, 12 P.3d at 1238 ); see also id. at 373, 341 P.3d at 579 (adopting a prosp

2023Additionally, in Lewis, the supreme court adopted a prospective requirement that, "prior to the start of trial, trial courts must '(1) inform the defendant of his or her personal right to testify or not to testify and (2) alert the defendant that if he or she has not testified by the end of the trial, the court will briefly question the defendant to ensure that the decision not to testify is the defendant's own decision.'" State v. Monteil, 134 Hawai#i 361, 371, 341 P.3d 567, 577 (2014) (quoting Lewis, 94 Hawai#i at 297, 12 P.3d at 1238 ); see also id. at 373, 341 P.3d at 579 (adopting a prosp

2019Thus, we mandated that "trial courts 'prior to the start of trial, [shall] [ ] inform the defendant of his or her personal right to testify or not to testify[.]' " Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Tachibana , 79 Hawai'i at 237 n.9, 900 P.2d at 1304 n.9 ); see also State v. Monteil , 134 Hawai'i 361 , 373, 341 P.3d 567 , 579 (2014) (affirming Lewis and adopting a prospective rule that trial courts are required to inform defendants during the Lewis advisement that the decision not to testify cannot be used by the fact finder to decide the case).

2019Thus, we mandated that "trial courts 'prior to the start of trial, [shall] [ ] inform the defendant of his or her personal right to testify or not to testify[.]' " Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Tachibana , 79 Hawai'i at 237 n.9, 900 P.2d at 1304 n.9 ); see also State v. Monteil , 134 Hawai'i 361 , 373, 341 P.3d 567 , 579 (2014) (affirming Lewis and adopting a prospective rule that trial courts are required to inform defendants during the Lewis advisement that the decision not to testify cannot be used by the fact finder to decide the case).

1996In Toyomura , this court explained that “the needs assessment and treatment provisions of HRS § 286-261(d) are essentially remedial[,]” id- at 22, 904 P.2d at 907 , and are not punitive, but rather, are “permissible preconditions to the prospective privilege of relicensure.” 6 Id. at 23 , 904 P.2d at 908 . *229 We therefore held that subsequent conviction and punishment did not violate double jeopardy principles.

1996In Toyomura , this court explained that “the needs assessment and treatment provisions of HRS § 286-261(d) are essentially remedial[,]” id- at 22, 904 P.2d at 907 , and are not punitive, but rather, are “permissible preconditions to the prospective privilege of relicensure.” 6 Id. at 23 , 904 P.2d at 908 . *229 We therefore held that subsequent conviction and punishment did not violate double jeopardy principles.

2014However, we note that to the extent that Cabinatan receives a new trial, this court’s prospective rule as set forth in Cabagbag will apply; that is, “when eyewitness identification is central to the case, [the] circuit eourt[ ] must give a specific jury instruction upon the request of the defendant to focus the jury’s attention on the trustworthiness of the identification.” Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i at 313-14 , 277 P.3d at 1038-39 .

2014However, we note that to the extent that Cabinatan receives a new trial, this court’s prospective rule as set forth in Cabagbag will apply; that is, “when eyewitness identification is central to the case, [the] circuit court[] must give a specific jury instruction upon the request of the defendant to focus the jury’s attention on the trustworthiness of the identification.” Cabagbag, 127 Hawai#i at 313-14, 277 P.3d at 1038-39 .