 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mata3/28/1990
These are appeals from two cases tried on consecutive days. Defendant-Appellant Ronald Mata (Mata) was charged with, and convicted of, driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of HRS § 291-4(a)(1) and (2). Defendant-Appellant Santos Ancheta (Ancheta) was charged and convicted of driving under the influence in violation of HRS § 291-4(a)(1) only. The same judge presided over both trials. The appellants were represented by the same firm of attorneys. Virtually identical motions for disqualification of the trial judge were filed, and denied, in both cases. In both cases, the trial judge gave extensive, and detailed, instructions as to the law both prior to the commencement of the trial, and at the conclusion of the trial.
In Mata , appellant complains only of the refusal of the trial judge to disqualify himself while in Ancheta , appellant complains also of the giving of instructions.
The affidavits of disqualification were based upon HRS § 601-7(b), which provides:
Whenever a party to any suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal , makes and files an affidavit that the judge before whom the action or proceeding is to be tried or heard has a personal bias or prejudice either against the party or in favor of any opposite party to the suit, the judge shall be disqualified from proceeding therein. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists and shall be filed before the trial or hearing of the action or proceeding, or good cause shall be shown for the failure to file it within such time. No party shall be entitled in any case to file more than one affidavit; and no affidavit shall be filed unless accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that the affidavit is made in good faith. Any judge may disqualify oneself by filing with the clerk of the court of
which the judge is a judge a certificate that the judge deems oneself unable for any reason to preside with absolute impartiality in the pending suit or action.
In Mata , the trial judge ruled that the motion to disqualify, which had been filed after the jury was drawn but before the trial itself began, was untimely, but went on to discuss the allegations in the affidavit, and expressly incorporated therein what he had had to say in response to a similar motion and affidavit in a case entitled State v. Hee . In Ancheta , no question as to the timeliness of the motion was raised, however, the court's remarks in State v. Hee were again incorporated in the reasons for denying the motion.
Under the statute, the crucial document which must be filed, when a disqualification is sought, is an affidavit. That affidavit must be filed "before the trial or hearing of the action or proceeding, or good cause shall be shown for the failure to file it within such time," and that affidavit must show that the judge "has a personal bias or prejudice either against the party or in favor of any opposite party to the suit."
In the factual context of the Mata case, where numerous similar affidavits had been filed in similar cases, involving the same grounds, by the same attorneys, against the same judge, and where there was a claim that oral notice that such would be filed had been given at pre-trial, and where the actual trial had not begun, even though the jury had been selected, the trial judge's rejection of the affidavit on the basis of timeliness was overtechnical and erroneous, but the error was harmless since the judge did go on to consider the merits
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|