statute of limitations defense in Hawaii

2016Specifically, we have held that a statute of limitations challenge to a lesser included offense is waived by requesting an instruction on the lesser included offense, as in Timoteo ; and that the statute of limitations may be waived by *29 pleading no contest to the charge at issue, as in Adams v. State, 103 Hawai'i 214, 226 , 81 P.3d 394, 406 (2003).

2016Specifically, we have held that a statute of limitations challenge to a lesser included offense is waived by requesting an instruction on the lesser included offense, as in Timoteo ; and that the statute of limitations may be waived by *29 pleading no contest to the charge at issue, as in Adams v. State, 103 Hawai'i 214, 226 , 81 P.3d 394, 406 (2003).

2003A voluntary plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”); State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39 , 539 N.E.2d 1159, 1163-64 (1988) (statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be voluntarily waived; claim of error based on statute of limitations was waived by defendant’s guilty plea); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (“[C]riminal statute of limitations are not jurisdictional, but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.... [Defendant's guilty plea ... was sufficient for defendant to waive the st

2003A voluntary plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”); State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39 , 539 N.E.2d 1159, 1163-64 (1988) (statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be voluntarily waived; claim of error based on statute of limitations was waived by defendant’s guilty plea); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (“[C]riminal statute of limitations are not jurisdictional, but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.... [Defendant's guilty plea ... was sufficient for defendant to waive the st

2020Group, 58 Haw. 570, 573 , 574 P.2d 132, 134-35 (1978)).

2020Group, 58 Haw. 570, 573 , 574 P.2d 132, 134-35 (1978)).

2020See Hun v. Center Properties, 63 Haw. 273, 279 , 626 P.2d 182, 186 (1981) (applying HRS § 663-3 where the nature of the claim was recovery for the wrongful death of the decedent). 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER person sought to be estopped [from asserting a statute-of- limitations defense], and that such reliance was reasonable." Vidinha, 112 Hawai#i at 342, 145 P.3d at 885 (quoting Doherty v. Hartford Ins.

2020See Hun v. Center Properties, 63 Haw. 273, 279 , 626 P.2d 182, 186 (1981) (applying HRS § 663-3 where the nature of the claim was recovery for the wrongful death of the decedent). 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER person sought to be estopped [from asserting a statute-of- limitations defense], and that such reliance was reasonable." Vidinha, 112 Hawai#i at 342, 145 P.3d at 885 (quoting Doherty v. Hartford Ins.

2020See Hun v. Center Properties, 63 Haw. 273, 279 , 626 P.2d 182, 186 (1981) (applying HRS § 663-3 where the nature of the claim was recovery for the wrongful death of the decedent). 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER person sought to be estopped [from asserting a statute-of- limitations defense], and that such reliance was reasonable." Vidinha, 112 Hawai#i at 342, 145 P.3d at 885 (quoting Doherty v. Hartford Ins.

2016See Timoteo, 87 Hawai'i at 116 , 952 P.2d at 873 (distinguishing State v. Black, 66 Haw. 530, 531 , 668 P.2d 32, 34 (1983), in which we held that a defendant did not waive his right to proof of venue by failing to raise the issue prior to a motion for judgment of acquittal, because “unlike Timoteo, the defendant in Black did not affirmatively act in any manner indicating that he was waiving the right at issue”). 12 We have not yet decided whether a statute of limitations challenge can be waived based solely on the timing of the challenge.

2016Notably, in Timoteo , the defendant raised the statute of limitations challenge to the lesser-included offense at issue post-verdict, but the court made no mention of the timing of the challenge in determining that the claim had been waived. 87 Hawai'i at 113-16 , 952 P.2d at 869-73 . 14 .

2016See Timoteo, 87 Hawai'i at 116 , 952 P.2d at 873 (distinguishing State v. Black, 66 Haw. 530, 531 , 668 P.2d 32, 34 (1983), in which we held that a defendant did not waive his right to proof of venue by failing to raise the issue prior to a motion for judgment of acquittal, because “unlike Timoteo, the defendant in Black did not affirmatively act in any manner indicating that he was waiving the right at issue”). 12 We have not yet decided whether a statute of limitations challenge can be waived based solely on the timing of the challenge.

2016See Timoteo, 87 Hawai'i at 116 , 952 P.2d at 873 (distinguishing State v. Black, 66 Haw. 530, 531 , 668 P.2d 32, 34 (1983), in which we held that a defendant did not waive his right to proof of venue by failing to raise the issue prior to a motion for judgment of acquittal, because “unlike Timoteo, the defendant in Black did not affirmatively act in any manner indicating that he was waiving the right at issue”). 12 We have not yet decided whether a statute of limitations challenge can be waived based solely on the timing of the challenge.

2016To determine this issue, we are mindful that while statutes of limitations “may be invoked, and waived, as affirmative defenses, that is not the sum total of their nature or function.” Stan’s, 111 Hawai'i at 33 , 137 P.3d at 347 (emphasis added).

2016To determine this issue, we are mindful that while statutes of limitations “may be invoked, and waived, as affirmative defenses, that is not the sum total of their nature or function.” Stan’s, 111 Hawai'i at 33 , 137 P.3d at 347 (emphasis added).

2012In support of this rationale, this court relied on Mississippi Food & Fuel Workers’ Compensation Trust v. Tackett, 778 So.2d 136, 142 (Miss.Ct.App.2000), which adopted the “general rule that an insurance company’s intervention in an injured worker’s third-party tort claim to assert the company’s right of subrogation is not subject to a statute of limitations bar so long as the original action was commenced ... within the applicable limitation period.” Kepo'o, 106 Hawai'i at 285-86 , 103 P.3d at 954-55 .

2006See State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai'i 56, 63-64 , 929 P.2d 69 , 76-[77] ( ... 1996)[;] State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 13 , 928 P.2d 843, 855 ( ... 1996) (“In an indictment, the offense ... may be stated with so much detail of time, place, and circumstances and such particulars ... as are necessary to identify the transaction, to bring it within the statutory definition of the offense charged, to show that the court has jurisdiction, and to give the accused reasonable notice of the facts.”) ([emphasis in] original). 7.

2006See State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai'i 56, 63-64 , 929 P.2d 69 , 76-[77] ( ... 1996)[;] State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 13 , 928 P.2d 843, 855 ( ... 1996) (“In an indictment, the offense ... may be stated with so much detail of time, place, and circumstances and such particulars ... as are necessary to identify the transaction, to bring it within the statutory definition of the offense charged, to show that the court has jurisdiction, and to give the accused reasonable notice of the facts.”) ([emphasis in] original). 7.

2006See State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai'i 56, 63-64 , 929 P.2d 69 , 76-[77] ( ... 1996)[;] State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 13 , 928 P.2d 843, 855 ( ... 1996) (“In an indictment, the offense ... may be stated with so much detail of time, place, and circumstances and such particulars ... as are necessary to identify the transaction, to bring it within the statutory definition of the offense charged, to show that the court has jurisdiction, and to give the accused reasonable notice of the facts.”) ([emphasis in] original). 7.

2006See State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai'i 56, 63-64 , 929 P.2d 69 , 76-[77] ( ... 1996)[;] State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 13 , 928 P.2d 843, 855 ( ... 1996) (“In an indictment, the offense ... may be stated with so much detail of time, place, and circumstances and such particulars ... as are necessary to identify the transaction, to bring it within the statutory definition of the offense charged, to show that the court has jurisdiction, and to give the accused reasonable notice of the facts.”) ([emphasis in] original). 7.

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003A voluntary plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”); State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39 , 539 N.E.2d 1159, 1163-64 (1988) (statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be voluntarily waived; claim of error based on statute of limitations was waived by defendant’s guilty plea); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (“[C]riminal statute of limitations are not jurisdictional, but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.... [Defendant's guilty plea ... was sufficient for defendant to waive the st

2003A voluntary plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”); State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39 , 539 N.E.2d 1159, 1163-64 (1988) (statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be voluntarily waived; claim of error based on statute of limitations was waived by defendant’s guilty plea); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (“[C]riminal statute of limitations are not jurisdictional, but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.... [Defendant's guilty plea ... was sufficient for defendant to waive the st

2003A voluntary plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”); State v. Brown, 43 Ohio App.3d 39 , 539 N.E.2d 1159, 1163-64 (1988) (statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be voluntarily waived; claim of error based on statute of limitations was waived by defendant’s guilty plea); James v. Galetka, 965 P.2d 567, 573 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (“[C]riminal statute of limitations are not jurisdictional, but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.... [Defendant's guilty plea ... was sufficient for defendant to waive the st

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) (“As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal”) (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff “lacked standing to bring suit against appellees”); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it ■has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawai'i v. Haw

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 ("Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.

2003See also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 ("Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97 , 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d 409 , 431 n. 15 (2000) ("As a threshold matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.") (citations omitted); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd., 91 Hawai'i 51, 60 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1086 (1999) (stating that jurisdiction must be addressed and that plaintiff "lacked standing to bring suit against appellees"); Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai'i 384, 393 , 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (noting that as a threshold matter a court must first determine if it has jurisdiction); Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa

2003See State v. Merino, 81 Hawai'i 198, 223 , 915 P.2d 672, 697 (1996) (“Where the request [to withdraw a plea] is made after sentence has been imposed, the ‘manifest injustice’ standard is applied.” (Citation omitted.)) However, inasmuch as we hold infra that Adams effectively waived the statute of limitations defense for Counts III, IV, V, and VI upon entry of his plea, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether Adams can partially withdraw or modify the plea agreement.

2003See State v. Merino, 81 Hawai'i 198, 223 , 915 P.2d 672, 697 (1996) (“Where the request [to withdraw a plea] is made after sentence has been imposed, the ‘manifest injustice’ standard is applied.” (Citation omitted.)) However, inasmuch as we hold infra that Adams effectively waived the statute of limitations defense for Counts III, IV, V, and VI upon entry of his plea, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether Adams can partially withdraw or modify the plea agreement.