State v. Ames3/16/1990
[71 Haw Page 305] The State petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Ames to vacate two virtually identical pretrial discovery orders issued in State v. Mafi , wherein Defendant Mafi is charged, inter alia , with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (DUI), pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291-4. The government alleges "Judge Ames clearly abused his judicial discretion and exceeded his authority" under Rule 16(d) of
the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure by permitting Mafi to discover 41 of 45 items he sought by means of a Written Request for Disclosure served on the State and a subsequent motion for discovery filed in district court. We agree that Judge Ames has acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction pursuant to HRPP Rule 16 in this case and thus invoke our supervisory power over the district court to direct by mandamus that the two discovery orders entered by Judge Ames on September 1, 1988 be vacated.
I.
The extraordinary writ of mandamus is appropriate "to confine an inferior tribunal to the lawful exercise of its proper jurisdiction[.]" State v. Shintaku , 64 Haw. 307, 312, 640 P.2d 289, 293 (1982). See also In re Doe , 67 Haw. 466, 469, 691 P.2d 1163, 1165 (1984). But "mandamus may not be used to perform the office of an appeal." State v. Shintaku , 64 Haw. at 310, 640 P.2d at 292 (citing Chambers v. Leavey , 60 Haw. 52, 57, 587 P.2d 807, 810 (1978)). Thus, we must at the outset determine whether the State may have a remedy by way of an appeal or any other means of relief from the disputed discovery orders.
" he right of appeal in a criminal case is purely statutory and exists only when given by some constitutional or statutory provision." State v. Oshiro , 69 Haw. 438, 441, 746 P.2d 568, 570 (1987). See also State v. Shintaku , 64 Haw. at 310, 640 P.2d at 292; State v. Johnson , 50 Haw. 525, 526, 445 P.2d 36, 37 (1968). HRS § 641-13 confers this right on the State in nine instances, which do not, however, include pretrial discovery orders. Thus, the State is without a remedy from the September 1, 1988 discovery
orders issued by Judge Ames, unless this court grants its petition for extraordinary relief.
But " he mere fact that other remedies are not available has never in itself been sufficient justification for mandamus." State v. Shintaku , 64 Haw. at 311, 640 P.2d at 293 (citing In re Application of Liverpool , 14 Haw. 481, 488 (1902)). And " here the trial judge has discretion to act, . . . mandamus clearly will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even where the judge has acted erroneously, . . . unless . . . the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, . . . or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court where it was under a legal duty to act." Id. at 312-13, 640 P.2d at 293-94. See, e.g., In re Doe , 67 Haw. 466, 691 P.2d 1163 (1984); State ex rel. Marsland v. Town , 66 Haw. 516, 668 P.2d 25 (1983).
|