If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
~
-, ..; ~ " - ...... - -.. ~.~ ...... :....-;;;- .~- ..-
/I "
'-." • '-"J. .. • •• • • - /I /I
·i ';l"' . ., ------'----,.. _---
o
. . '/. /;'~
\'i ,J
122832 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. POints of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice
Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material In mi crofiche only has been granted by -Judiciary State of Hawaii to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the copyright owner.
. . . ,,_,.. "_ ,~"(~,, _,.,"" ' ... ".... ",.":_.",,. ""~.'"; .,,_~., .,'--. .... ,~.,.,.<.~"" .....",,1' iN'_ ", ...." '<~'~~:"!"rl'.:-...:, ;,~",."",:.:;rt"'~")~'~lj;-t',,*;,,"'i·,' >:'\I.;-","'it.:R"!(~'''''''':~::'lI!'',;r"'';·tr~;;~~''>-~1~ ,t!'(,'i'it!'" ,~:·,F;.~"V.(;t:;:I'::;~~'.fl .l"'}'.. t;.,.. '-~ .. i .. \:',,'·r.~~," '., '';~V;."",.fo·'If;·1\'r.I.)j; M • • Executive Summary With thi:- ~liirtieth JUdiciary Annual Throughout the decade, the appli Rep01t, we come to the close of the cation of technology has been a recur decade. We are pleased, as always, to ring theme within the Judiciary. Auto have this opportunity to review the mation efforts will continue into the 90s progress we have made in improving and beyond, as they must if we are to Hawaii's judicial system, and to look remain responsive and efficient in the forward at the challenges of the future. face of changes in society and our We in the Judiciary continue to caseloads. find our motivation in our Constitu At the same time, the Judiciary tionalmandate toprovide a forum where enters the 1990s knowing that no single all the people of Hawaii can have their too], and no single program, will aUow disputes resolved in a timely manner. us to perform all of our Constitutional And even as we enter a new decade, the and administrative functions. We rely Judiciary's primary mission remains as on facilities: bricks and mortar, sup it has been since the first days of State plies, equipment, and aU of the "hard hood: to constantly seek ot:t those ware" of our system. We also depend changes, improvements and refinements on people. Clerical staff to keep abreast that will make Hawaii's judicial system of the mountain of documents the sys the finest in the United States. We also saw our programs grow. tem generates, as well as data and de Keeping in mind the diverse needs The Program on Alternative Dispute tails. Court reporters to make a penna of our constantly evolving judicial sys Resolution, long an important resource nent record of courtroom activities for tem, over the past year we have taken to the Judiciary, has become the Center reference and appeals. Personnel to further steps in a continuing effort to for Alternative Dispute Resolution, a staff the wide range of positions that improve Judiciary operations. These permanent program. help the Judiciary operate as a system, steps have touched each of the varied The success of the Children's Ad from budget and planning to driver edu aspects of the Judiciary: our courts, vocacy Center in Honolulu has allowed cation, security, and counseling. administration, and support programs. us to begin the process of expansion to The measure of our success over In the courts, we have been grati other islands. The Sex Offender and the past decade, and for the decade to fied to see the efforts of the past few Intrafamilial Assault Unit is a new pro come, is how well the elements of the years come to fruition, and continue to gram offering guidance to families. Itis Judiciary work togetherto serve a single make refinements as we learn from our structured similarly to the Intensive purpose: the swift, efficient delivery of experiences. The recent reorganization Supervision ofDrug Offenders Program, justice in a growing, changing state. of the Family Court has completely which l1as also shown good results in its We have much to be proud of, and eliminated Family Court backlogs. We first year of operation. much to work toward. And we will expanded on that experience and under In Administration, programs have remain unswerving in our dedication to took an in-depth analysis of the work been reorganized to allow us to move serving the people of Hawaii. ings of the District Court of the First efficiently into the new decade and, by Circuit, which culminated in a reor extension, into the next century. The ganization plan which will guide and recent report of the Legislative Auditor Sincerely, serve us well into the 1990s. gave us new insights into the admini stration of the JUdiciary, and has be come a catalyst for change. HERMANLUM Chief Justice December 31,1989 ~il ~- ,-.,. -'C"""_ ~ !,..~- 1111& ~.~ :-; 1": i.., '1\U f~ .-.::..~:;.~"--- • ,..,. t, ;;~~ ~~; -,-'I, • .~7.~:~.~. :i:--";~,".... .'_' .', ~.:~,,- t~"\, __ ~ ~~~~')".',~,'- ~,.. '~;::~~;;¥~~;~'~~~"1:->- T ~ -, rr T, " <" " ~', t, .-=t~~. Table of Contents FOCUS: FY 1988-89 7 COURTS 8 PROGRAMS 10 ADMINISTRATION 12 ALI'IOLANI HALE 14 JUSTICE EDWARD H. NAKAMURA 15 IN THE COURTS 17 JUDGES AND JUSTICES 18 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 20 COURTS OF APPEAL 22 • The Supreme Court 23 • Intermediate Court of Appeals 23 THE TRIAL COURTS 24 • Circuit Courts 26 • Family Courts 27 • District Courts 28 • Land and Tax Appeal Courts 29 ADMINISTRATION 31 • Personnel Statistics 33 BOARDS, COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONS 35 FINANCIAL RESOURCES 37 On the cover: The seal of the Hawaii Supreme Court highlights the renova tion ofthe Supreme COllrt courtroom in Ali' iolani Hale. Designed by Chapman Lam, the seal incorporates the Kalakalla Crest, the traditional scales ofJustice, and a ri bbonproc/aiming "The Highest Court in the Land." Focus: Courts ADJUSTING TO CHANGING But these issues have not deterred DEMANDS the Jlldiciary from its dedication to the program. In light of the program's Improving the delivery of court serv success in making jury service less ices to the public is an on-going process. burdensome on the public and present Refinements in the courts-the Judici ing a greater pool of qualified jurors, the ary's primary point of contact with Judiciary remains committed to the Hawaii's people-continued through process of refinement. As the other out the year. circuits prepare to adopt the one-day, Public response to the one-day, one one-trial system in July 1990, the Judi trial juror program, initiated in the First ciary is working to meet the challenges Circuit in January 1989, has been over that the new system presents. whelminglyfavorable. By reducing the In the Family Court, efforts to juror service period from 30 days to a streamline operations have been an single day or a single trial, the program unqualified success. The recent court has been very successful in reducing the reorganizaJion has brought unparalleled personal and financial burden on each efficiency to court operations across the potential juror. At the same time, the board. An outstanding example is the First Circuit jury pool now represents a elimination of the Family Court case much better cross section of the popula backlog. Where in the past a domestic tion. violence case may have taken six months Still, the new system's great public to come to trial, such cases are now success has come at some cost to the brought to trial in 30 days. In the next Judiciary. Under the 30 day jury term, fiscal year, the court will become still 9,000 jurors rendered service in an en more responsive as a state-wide Family tire year. In the past year, 30,600 jurors Court computer system goes into opera were required. tion. As the number of jurors increased, The promise of court reorganiza so did the strain on facilities. Because tion is now being tested in the District as many as four to five hundred jurors Court of the First Circuit. Following a may appear on a single day, the jury ten-month study by the consultants who lounge has proven to be inadequate. assisted the Family Courts, the District The large groups that are called in have Court has adopted a plan of reorganiza made it necessary to extend staff and tion touching all aspects of court opera facility schedules. And parking, always tions. at a premium near the Circuit Court An important step in making the Building, is an on-going problem. District Court more responsive to its caseload is the creation of three distinct divisions within the court. The Civil, Criminal/Dill and Traffic/Rural Divi sions will be responsible for manage ment of the case]oad in each division, 8 Even as plans to reorganize the District Court of the First Circuit were being In the First Circuit, the adoption of the developed, the number of drunk driving cases continued to mount. With two one day-one trial juror term has meant DisfrictCourt courtrooms dedicated solely to DUl trials, the Judiciary is commit a threefold increase in the number of ted to seeking legislative solutions to the growing caseload. jurors called to serve. The resulting strain onfacilities is amply balanced by the creation of division-specific bench great public satisfaction. books, and the creation of division cal endars. All of this will make the divi sions more sensitive to the demands of The Judiciary's comprehensive facili their specific caseloads, allowing for ties master plan became its award win greater efficiency in case handling. ning facilities master plan when the The court will also streamline plan received the American Institute of operations by creating a new frame Architecture's 1989 award for excel work for the handling of traffic cases, lence in the category ofArchitecturefor which account for more than 90% of the Justice. The award also marked the court caseload. Anew, simplified bail first time the AlA presented an award schedule will allow traffic offenders to for the excellence of a judicial system avoid court appearances in many cases. plan, rather than the design ofa specific And, where court appearances are nec facility. The master plan projects the essary, a unified arraignment and trial Judiciary's courthouse needs through process will eliminate the need for the year 2005. multiple court appearances. Through a mix of organizational approaches, the entire JUdiciary contin ues to prepare for the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. 9 Focus: Programs CONTINUING A COMMITMENT The latter category includes public TO PUBLIC SERVICE disputes involving the allocation of public resources or the siting of public As the number and range of cases be facilities, and complex cases involving fore Hawaii courts continue to grow, so mUltiple pmties or formidable techni too must the Judiciary programs which cal, procedural or factual issues. Com support court operations. The fiscal plicated, high-profile cases such as the year has seen continued growth in a Aloha Stadium construction litigation variety of programs. and heptachlor lawsuits are examples of The Program on Altel1lative Dis the kind of disputes in which the Center pute Resolution reached a significant will continue to find itself involved. milestone when Act 346 of the 1989 Success at the Children's Advo Legislature made the program a penn a cacy Center has also resulted in an nent part of the Judiciary . Now, as the expansion of services. The Advocacy Center for Altel1lative Dispute Resolu Center's multi-agency approach, offer tion, it is ensured a continuing role in ing a central location and comforting assisting in the efficient handling of the setting for interviewing and treating Judiciary caseload. sexually abused children, has become Under the new law, the Center is an important resource in the First Cir responsibile for helping to bring about cuit. effective, timely and voluntary resolu Over the past year, the Children's tion of disputes; reducing public and Advocacy Center began preparing to private costs of litigation; and increas make its services available in all cir ing satisfaction with the justice system. cuits. Act 346 also added a new statutory The cooperation and pm'ticipation mandate to the Center's operations. of local and business communities has Along with offering continuing assis always been vital to the creation and tance in areas such as the Court Ordered continued success of the Advocacy Arbitration Program, the Center will Center. With the cooperation of neigh provide consultive resources and tech bor island communities, public/private nical assistance in cases that affect the partnerships and Friends of the Chil public interest or the work of state or dren's Advocacy Center organizations county agencies. have been created on Maui and Hawaii. Facilities have been set up in temporary locations on Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii, and possible penn anent sites have been located in Hilo, in Kona, and on Kauai. Over the nextfew months, prepara tions will continue with training for Advocacy Center personnel in neigh bor island circuits. In Spring of 1990, the first of the neighbor island Centers will open on Maui. 10 Another program directed at vic tims of sexual abuse and their families is the Adult Probation Division's Intra familial Assault Unit. Like Adult Pro bation's Intensive Supervision for Drug Offenders Program, the Intrafamilial Assault Unit is designed to reduce and prevent crime by offering both counsel ing and intense, specialized supervision to at-risk offenders. The IntrafamiIialAssault Unit grew out of a Sex Offender Master Plan which was funded by the 1989 Legislature. Together, the Sex Offender Master Plan and the Intrafamilial Assault Unit re flect the Judiciary's continuing effort to provide more focused, directed, and effective supervision programs for abusers who pose a risk of repeat of fenses. Fiscal year 1988-89 saw the constl'llction of the Family Court's status offender slzelter on land adjacent to the Alder Street detention home. Now nearing completion, the newfacilitywill provide shelterfor runaway or incorrigible youths whose offenses are /lot crimes per se, but arise out of their status as juveniles. The Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution continued assist in the set tlement of complex cases through the fiscal year. In Kahala, a dispute over building setbacks led to a class action lawsuit. The Center coordinated the efforts of mediators, who worked with the numerous parties concemed and settled the dispute without the needfor litigation. 11 Focus: Administration IMPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE The reorganization of administra ORGANIZATION tive offices includes: • Establishing aPlanning andBudget In response to both internal and external Division to serve as the center for forces, the Judiciary administration has statewideJudiciaryplanning, budg undergone significant changes. Per eting, capitalimprovement coordi haps the most important single change nation, and program evaluation. has resulted from the implementation of • Placing facilities management and an extensive administrativereorganiza the printshop under the Fiscal and tion which more clearly delineates line Support Services Division, which and staff functions. is responsible for centralized fiscal Circuit, District and Family Court and administrative services, as well administrative judges continue to offer as contracts and purchasing. supervision over their courts' cases and • Creating a Data Processing and judges. In addition, they are now re Information Division which will sponsible for the overall administration centralize Judiciary computer sys of their respective courts, including tems and data processing. personnel, budgetary and fiscal requests. • Transferring the Internal Audit Of Chief court administrators manage and fice from the Budget and Fiscal Of oversee detailed administrative matters fice to the office of the Administra of the court under the supervision of the tive Director, thus allowing the administrative judges. Judiciary to develop and maintain Under this new organization, the a more independent system of in office of the Administrative Director ternal control. continues to administer all centralized Another catalyst for change within support functions. As a result, the the Judiciary Administration has been Administrative Director is now respon theManagement and Financial Audit of sible for the statewide administrative the Judicial) prepared by the Legisla functioning of the Judiciary, while each tiveAuditor and presented to theJ udici administrative judge has responsibility ary at the stmt of the 1989 legislative for the total workings of his court. session. While many of the Auditor's rec ommendations called for changes which the Judiciary was already pursuing, others made the Judiciary take a fresh look at its administrative structure and procedures. 12 A reorganization ofadministrativejill1c tions will allow the Judiciary to remain responsive to its changing needs in the coming years. Under a plan created with the assistance of the judges them selves, Administrative Judges are re sponsible for the workings of their courts, relying on court administrators to implement policies. Administrative programs have been restructured as well, allowingfor greater efficiency and growth. A product of the 1988 Legislative session, the Report of the Legislative Auditor offered a new perspective on Judiciary operations. In 1989, the Report became a catalyst for change within the Judiciary, and will continue to serve as a guide as the Judiciary approaches the next century. The Judiciary's initial response to Combined with the plan for admin this report was in the form of actions, istrative reorganization, the audit is taken or being taken, on more than 50 of bringing about changes that will give the Auditor's recommendations. There new vitality to Judiciary operations, and are still other projects, however, that new flexibility in approaching the chal represent more formidable financial and lenges of the coming decade. technical challenges, calling for careful work over a longer term. 13 Focus: Ali'iolani Hale POLISHING OUR CROWN JEWEL After 10 years of extensive renovation and restoration work, Ali'iolani Hale, the flagship facility of the Hawaii State Judiciary, began to emerge this past year from under scaffolding and protec tive drapes with a grand new look: are paired and burnished exterior, a mag nificently restored and renewed inte rior, and freshly landscaped grounds. The historical building now boasts a beautifully restored Supreme Court courtroom on the second floor, in which an imposing new koa wood court bench and the new official seal of the Hawaii Supreme Court are the center of focus. On the ground floor, the old rotunda is refinished in marble and a new Judici ary HistOlY Center stands in the wing. The History Center opened to the public in September, 1989, and serves Resplendent with the warm glow of polished lwa, the Supreme Court courtroom as an educational facility offering an has become a showpiece in AU'iolani Hale. overview of the early days of Hawaii law. Its outstanding features include an audio-visual presentation examining the The new landscapingfronting AU' olani history of Hawaiian water rights, and a Hale features the return of the stately renovated courtroom recreatir g Ali 'io royal palms encircling the Kamehameha Iani as it was in 1913. The funding that statue. The original palms were re made the History Center a reality came moved in 1967 after a group of tree from various sources, including the trimmers, hired by a man posing as a National Endowrilent for the Humani government official, "decapitated" ties, the State Legislature, and the them. Friends of the Judiciary History Center. The Judicial}' HistOlY Center offers a look at the development of the modern Hawaiian legal system. 14 Focus: Justice Edward H. Nakamura DEDICATION TO EXCELLENCE For seven years, the makeup of the Hawaii Supreme Court has remained unchanged-the longest such peliod since Statehood. Now the process of change within the court begins again with the retirement of Justice Edward H. Nakamura in December 1989. Justice Nakamura ends a ten year career on the high court which began with his appointment by Governor George Ariyoshi in 1980. At that time, The HOllolulu Star Bulletin described him as "one of Honolulu's best-known labor lawyers," and his nomination received strong support in Senate con firmation hearings. During his tenn, Justice Nakamura became an important voice on the Su preme Court, authoring opinions in several key cases. Among them is Kinoshita v. Canadian PacificAirlines, Ltd., in which the court ruled that an employer's written handbooks and poli cies can be considered binding con tracts under certain circumstances. That decision protects many employees who are not covered by collective bargain ing agreements or formal employment contracts. More recently, Justice Nakamura wrote the dissenting opinion in Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co. v. City alld COUllty of HOllOlulu, popularly known as the Sandy Beach initiative Following service in the United In addition to his legal work, Jus case. Defending the pUblic;s right to States Army, Justice Nakamura gradu tice Nakamura has dedicated time to make zoning decisions through the ini ated from the University of Hawaii in community service. He served on the tiative process, Justice Nakamura's 1948. He obtained his Juris Doctorate University of Hawaii Board of Regents dissent was based in large part on his degree from the University of Chicago from 1964 through 1971, and as Board confidence in the wisdom of the general School of Law and was admitted to the Chairman from 1967-1968. From 1972 public; in his words, he neither bears a Hawaii bar in 1951. Justice Nakamura through 1976, he served on the Hawaii "distrust of democracy nor subscribers] practiced law with the law films of Committee for the Humanities. He has to the notion that political decisions Bouslog and Symonds (1951-1979) and also served on the Board of Directors rendered directly by the electorate ... King, Nakamura, Nakamura and of the Hawaii Bar and several Bar are devoid of civic virtue." Takahashi (1979-1980). committees. 15 ~ .... le Justices and Judges of the H~waii State Judicial System Supreme Court District Court of the First Circuit Pel' Diem Judges, District Court Chief Justice Herman T. F. Lum of the First Circuit (Oahu) I (Oahu) Bruce S. Ames Associate Justice Edward H. Nakamura I 1st District Judge Marcia J. Waldorf Ronald G. S. Au Associate Justice Frank D. Padgett 2nd District Judge Tenney Z. Tongg Marilyn Carl smith Associate Justice Yoshimi Hayashi 3rd District Judge Frederick J. Titcomb Everett Cuskaden Associate Justice James H. Wakatsuki 4th District Judge Marilyn P. Lee David L. Fong Peter C. K. Fong (Family Court) Intermediate Court of Appeals 5th District Judge Herbert K. Colette Yoda Garibaldi Chief Judge James S. Burns Shimabukuro AlbeIt Gould (Family Court) Associate Judge Walter M. Heen 6th District Judge Edwin Y. Sasaki Leslie A. Hayashi Associate Judge Harry T. Tanaka 7th District Judge I. Norman Lewis Walter H. Ikeda 8th District Judge Bambi E. Weil Mary Blaine Johnston George Y. Kimura First Circuit Court (Oahu) 9th District Judge Richard M. C. Lum 10th District Judge James H. Dannenberg Robert Y. Kimura 1st Division Daniel Heely, (Sr. Judge, Kwan Hi Lim (Family Court) lith District Judge Melvin K. Soong Family Court) Melody K. MacKenzie (Admin. Judge) 2nd Division Richard Y. C. Au Victoria Marks (Family Court) 12th District Judge Francis S. Yamashita 3rd Division Leland H. Spencer Michael A. Marf 13th District Judge Tany S. Hong David Namaka 4th Division Robert G. Klein 14th District Judge Hiroshi Oshiro W. Patrick O'Connor 5th Division Thomas K. George T. H. Pai Kaulukukui, Jr. District Court of the Second Circuit Barbara P. Richardson 6th Division Wendell K. Huddy, (Maui) Ambrose J. Rosehill (Admin. Judge Criminal Division) 1st District Judge John T. Vail William E. Smith (Family Court) 7th Division Patrick K.S.L. Yim 2nd District Judge Eric H. Romanchak Henry Wong 8th Division Steven H. Levinson (Admin. Judge) Per Diem Judges, District Court, 9th Division Ronald T. Y. Moon 3rd District JudgeYoshio Shigezawa Second Circuit (Maui) 10th Division Wilfred K. Watanabe 4th District Judge Douglas Scott McNish Joel E. August Mark T. Honda 11th Division Donald K. Tsukiyama District Court of the Third Circuit Douglas H. Ige 12th Division Simeon Acobi\, Jr. (Hawaii) James R. Judge 13th Division Frank T. Takao 1st District Judge Cyril Kanemitsu Rosalyn Loomis 14th Division Philip T. Chun (Admin. Shackley F. Raffetto 2nd District Judge Joseph P. Florendo, Jr. Judge, Civil Divisioh) 3rd District Judge William S. Per Diem Judges, District Court, 15th Division Ronald B. Greig Chillingworth (Admin. Judge) Third Circuit (Hawaii) 16th Division Marie N. Milks K. Napua Brown 17th Division Edwin H. Honda District Court of the .Fifth Circuit Colin L. Love Michael J. Matsukawa Second Circuit Court (Maui) (Kauai) Clifford L. Nakea (Admin. Judge) George S. Yuda 1st Division Richard R. Komo Gerald S. Matsunaga Per Diem Judges, District Court, 2nd Division E. John McConnell Fifth Circuit (Kauai) 3rd Division Boyd F. Mossman (Admin. District Family Judges, Family Max W. J. Graham, Jr. (Family Court) Judge & Sr. Judge, Family Court) Court, First Circuit (Oahu) Joseph N. Kobayashi Third Circuit Court (Hawaii) Arnold T. Abe Teresa Tico 1st Division Shunichi Kimura Darryl Y. Choy 2nd Division Ernest Kubota (Admin. Evelyn B. Lance Judge) Linda K. C. Luke Marjorie H. Manuia 3rd Division Ronald Ibarra Togo Nakagawa Fifth Circuit Court (Kauai) Michael Anthony Town George M. Masuoka Frances Q. F. Wong 18 Justices of the Supreme Court Herman T. F. Lum, Edward H. Nakamura, Frank D. Padgett, Chief Justice Associate Justice Associate Justice Yoshimi Hayashi, James H. Wakatsuki, Associate Justice Asosciate Justice Judges of the Interlnediate Court of Appeals James S. Burns, Walter M. Heen, Harry T. Tanaka, Chief Judge Associate Judge Associate Judge 19 .. ',"\1' ..:.... JuBiciaty .; l c Organization Chief Justice BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS --. ..:....-,------_._----- (Appointed by Supreme Court) • Judicial Co unci I • Commission on Judicial Discipline • Board of Bar Examiners • Disciplinary Board Intermediate Court Supreme Court of Appeals Circuit Courts District Courts Family Courts • First Judicial Circuit • First Judicial Circuit • First Family Court • Second Judicial Circuit • Second Judicial Circuit • Second Circuit Family t . & Probation Services • Third Judicial Circuit • Third Judicial Circuit • Third Circuit Family • Fifth Judicial Circuit • Fifth Judicial Circuit & Probation Services • Fifth Circuit Family & Probation Services Land Court Tax Court JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMISSION (Independent body attached to the Judiciary for purposes of administration under Hawaii State Constitution) Administrative Director of the Courts Deputy Administrative Director of the Courts Administrative Divisions '0' • Program Services • Office of the Public Guardian • Children's Advocacy Center . 'I, • Court Staff Attorney • Planning & Budget • Personnel • Public Affairs Office • Fiscal & Support Services • Internal Audit • Law Library • Information & Data Processing • Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution • Sheriffs Office • Records Management Office 21 Courts of Appeal The Judiciary's appellate level is com Figure 1. posed of the Supreme Court and the Caseload Activity in the Courts of Appeal· Fiscal Years 1978·79 to 1988·89 Intermediate Court of Appeals (lCA), Number of Cases (In Hundreds) and hears appeals from all trial courts, as well as specific State boards and agencies. 40 All appeals are filed with the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. The as •••• signment judge, appointed by the Chief o .. Justice from the appellate level, assigns .' cases to either the Supreme Court or the 30 lCA. Generally, cases assigned to the Supreme Court involve the formulation '0• 25 .. and the development of the law, while .. o:e .... e .... ,. • cases assigned to thelnterl11ediate Court of Appeals involve possible trial court o . 20 e error or the application of settled law. e With rare exceptions, court rules mandate that Supreme Court decisions 15 be rendered within a year of oral argu ment and that lCA decisions be ren 10 dered within six months. Upon request by any party to the 5 ' ' proceeding, the Supreme Court has the ...... , ,,' 1111 III .. " ...... discretion to review a decision rendered 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 Forty-two such requests were made in fiscal year 1988-89; thirteen cases were ___ Filings •••• Case10ads ...... Terminations II III II .. Pending accepted for review. Actions Filed: Primary case filings in Terminations: The Courts of Appeal Status of Pending Cases: There were the Courts of Appeal numbered 790 tern1inated 887 primary cases during 409 primary cases and 17 supplemental during the 1988-89 fiscal year-730 fiscal year 1988-89, in contrast to 738 proceedings pending in the Courts of appeal filings and 60 original proceed primary cases tenninated in the previ Appeal at the end of the fiscal year. Of ings. This represents a 5% decrease in ous fiscal year; this reflects a 20% in these 426 cases, 67% were being briefed, filings from the 1987-88 fiscal year for crease in the tennination of primary 19% were ready to be scheduled for primary cases, which include original cases. Tem1inations of supplemental hearing or, in the case of supplemental proceedings as well as appeals from proceeding increased from 2,333 in the proceedings, ready and awaiting deci trial courts and government agencies. previous fiscal year to 2,345 in fiscal sion without further hearing, 4% were Supplemental proceedings, which year 1988-89. set for hearing, and 10% had been taken arise out of primary cases, are motions, under advisement and were awaiting special stipulations, or applications for decision. certiorari. Supplemental proceeding filings stood at 2,343 for fiscal year 1988-89. 22 Terminations: During fiscal year 1988- The Supreme Court The Intermediate 89, the Intermediate Court of Appeals Court of Appeals terminated 83% of its total caseload. The Supreme Court is the highest court That figure includes 138 primary cases in the State, with original and appellate and 48 supplemental proceedings. jurisdiction to determine questions of The second highest court in the state Status of Pending Cases: Pending at law, and mixed questions of law and the Intermedi ate Court of Appeals (ICA) the end of fiscal year 1988-89 were 37 fact. shares concurrent jurisdiction with the primary cases, 21 % of the total ICA ActionsFiled: During fiscal year 1988- Supreme Court in reviewing legal caseload for the year, and two supple 89, the Supreme Court saw 787 primary matters brought before the Courts of mental proceedings. cases filed, a decrease of 6% over the Appeal. Where the Supreme Court Of the total pending cases, 59% prior year; of these, 13 were cases pre usually reviews matters involving the were ready to be scheduled for hem'ina- formulation of the law, the Intermediate • b' viously decided by the Intermediate or, 111 the case of supplemental proceed- Court of Appeals and redocketed to the Court of Appeals usually reviews trial ings, ready and awaiting decision, 8% Supreme Court for review. The 2,296 court decisions for errors, and seeks to had been argued and taken under ad supplemental proceedings filed before correct such errors. visement, and 3% had been taken under the Supreme Court representan increase The Supreme Court may review a advisement without argument. of 1% over fiscal year 1987-88. decision of the ICA upon the request Terminations: Terminations of pri of a party to the proceedings, but the mary cases increased 22%, from 729 Supreme Court employs discretion in cases in Fiscal year 1987-88 to 886 assessing the merits of each such cases in fiscal year 1988-89. This in request. cluded 137 cases which were assigned Actions Filed: A total of 140 primary to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. cases and 48 supplemental proceedings Status of Pending Cases: Atthe end of were filed in the Intermediate Court of the fiscal year, 372 primary cases and Appeals in fiscal year 1988-89. This 15 supplemental proceedings were represents a 4% increase in filings over pending. Of the primary cases, 76% the previous fiscal year. Primary pro (284) were being briefed, 12% (43) ceedings are assigned to the Intermedi were ready to be scheduled for hearina- ate Court of Appeals from the Supreme 5% (17) were set for hearing, 4% (16) Court, while supplemental proceedings had been argued and taken under ad may be either filed directly with the visement, and 3% (12) had been taken rCA or transferred from the Supreme under advisement without oral argu Court. ment. All pending supplemental pro ceedings were complete and awaitina d~~oo. b 23 Trial Courts Hawaii's trial level is comprised of the The Second Judicial Circuit con Circuit Courts, the District Courts, the sists of Mau] County, which includes Land Court, and the Tax Appeal Court. the islands of Maui, Molokai (exclud The Family Courts are included in the ing the settlement of Kalawao), and Circuit Courts. With the exception of Lanai. Three circuit judges, four dis the Land and Tax Appeal Courts, which trict court judges, and six per diem are located in Honolulu only and serve judges serve a de facto population of the entire State, Hawaii's trial courts 124,900. function in four judicial circuits that The Third Judicial Circuit, divided correspond approximately to the geo into the districts of Hilo and Kona, graphical areas served by the counties. administers Hawaii County. Three cir The First Judicial Circuit serves cuit judges, three district judges, and the City and County of Honolulu, which four per diem judges serve a de facto includes the island of Oahu and the population of 126,300. settlement of Kalawao on Molokai. The Fourth Judicial Circuit is no Seventeen circuit judges, fourteen dis longer used as a circuit designation. trictjudges, eight Family Court judges, The Third and Fourth Circuits merged and twenty-four per diem judges-five in 1943. of whom serve the Family Court-are The Fifth Judicial Circuit serves designated to serve a de facto popula the County ofKauai, which includes the tion of 902,700. islands of Kauai and Niihau. One cir cuirjudge, two district judges and three per diem judges serve a de facto popu lation of 64,900. 24 Comparison of Cases Filed, , Fiscal Year 1987-88 and 1988-89· All Judicial Circuits Percent Cases Filed 1987-88 1988-89 Change Circuit Court 13,588 13,720 + 1% Family Court 40,058 39,950 0% District Court 857,676 941,008 +10% First Judicial Circuit Percent Cases Filed 1987-88 1988-89 Change Circuit Court 8,779 8,405 - 4% Family Court 26,927 25,854 - 4% District Court 708,549 793,929 +12% Second Judicial Circuit Percent Cases Filed 1987-88 1988-89 Change Circuit Court 1,588 2,066 +30% Family Court 4,548 5,861 +29% District Court 65,435 74,714 +14% Third Judicial Circuit Percent Cases Filed 1987-88 1988-89 Change Circuit Court 2,302 2,408 + 5% Family Court 5,760 5,819 + 1% District Court 61,614 50,406 -18% Fifth Judicial Circuit Percent Cases Filed 1987-88 1988-89 Change Circuit Court 919 841 - 8% Family Court 2,823 2,416 -14% District Court 22,078 21,959 - 1% 25 Circuit Courts Figure 2. Caseload Activity in the Circuit Courts Propel' • Fiscal Yeal's 1978-79 to 1988-89 The Circuit Courts have general juris Number of Cases (In Thousands) diction in civil and criminal matters. They have exclusive jurisdiction over 55 1\ jury trials, probate, guardianship, crimi nal felony trials, and civil cases where 50 the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. In addition, the Circuit Courts 45 have concurrent jurisdiction with the 40 District Courts in civil non-jury cases .+... where the amount in controversy is 35 ...... 111 •. ,111 "" ., between $5,000 and $10,000. Jurisdic ...... II " • .. II 1& iii 1& II tion also extends over mechanic's and .. ...- materialman's liens, naturalization, and .+ 25 .+ misdemeanor violations that are trans 11.+ ferred from the District Courts for jury 20 .- I, trials. n I, Actions Filed: Filings in the Circuit ,7 ,_ . < Courts Proper totaled 13,720 cases in ,.... '. .' I -~>. .,...... --, .. fiscal year 1988-89, a slight increase """'.'-.... --- ..,.,.,-- ..... -.- over the 13,588 cases filed in the previ ous fiscal yeai'. Of the cases filed, 40% (5,524) were civil cases, and 27% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 (3,763) were criminal cases. FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 ___ Filings Terminations: During fiscal year 1988- •••• Case load ___ Terminations •• II II Pending 89, theCircuitCOut1S telminated 15,079 cases, or 30% of the total caseload. Status of Pending Cases: At the end of the volume of its caseload. In the Sec probation or subject to court-ordered fiscal year 1988-89, a total of 32,250 ond, Third and Fifth Circuits, however, control, including offenders released cases were pendi ng in the Ci rcui t Courts adult probation functions are placed from the Hawaii State Hospital, there Proper. That represents a decrease of under the Family Courts. were 1,582 new placements added to 5% from the 36,968 cases pending at the Statewide reporting of Adult pro the 6,823 cases pending from the previ end offiscal year 1987-88. bation activity showed that there were ous year. Of these, 1,399 cases were The Adult Probation Division pro 2,618 investigations completed during closed, leaving 7,006 open at the end of vides pre-sentence investigations and fiscal year 1988-89. In supervision the fiscal year. supervision of persons placed on proba cases, where persons were placed on tion or subject to court-ordered control. In the First Circuit, the AdultProbation Division operates as a separate unit at tached to the Circuit Courts, because of 26 Family Court, Figure 3. Caseload Activity in the Family Courts· Fiscal Years 1978-79 to 1988-89 A Division of Number of Cases (In Thousands) Circuit Courts 80 The Family Courts were established to deal specifically with problems arising 70 •• • in the family environment. While di .II. . .. ' recting trials for juvenile offenders, iii • • 60 o· including traffic offenders, the Family " • iii ... Courts also administer hearings for • domestic situations and marital actions. •• 5.0 •• ••• Cases may include truancy and educa o G, tional neglect, abandonment, spouse and o· child abuse, divorce, custody and pater 40 .. - e • nity suits. The Family Courts also en .- compass Detention Homes as well as 30 the Juvenile and Family Crisis Services Branch which provides counseling to youths and their families. 20 Actions Filed: A total of39,950 cases were filed in the Family Courts in fiscal 10 year 1988-89, a decrease of less than 1% over the previous fiscal year. Total o filings consisted of32,546 primary cases 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 and 7,404 supplemental proceedings. FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 Terminations: Tenninations totaled 34,450 cases in fiscal year 1988-89, a ___ Filings • II • • Caseload ___ .... Terminations II 111 III • Pending slight increase from the 34,433 cases terminated in fiscal year 1987-88. Among the cases terminated were 28,337 primary cases and 6,113 supple mental proceedings. Status of Pending Cases: Atthe end of the fisc~tyear, 38,506 cases were pend ing, representing a 17% increase over the previous fiscal year. 27 District Courts Figure 4. Caseload Activity in the District Courts· Fiscal Years 1978-79 to 1988-89 Number of Cases (In Millions) Operating as non-jury courts, the Dis trict Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over traffic cases, petty and criminal misdemeanors, and most civil cases 1.4 • involving less than $5,000. They have limited jurisdiction in civil and criminal •'. 1.2 .- matters and have jurisdiction concur .' _...... -. rent with the Circuit Courts for civil ...... matters where the amount in contro 1.0 •• .- m versy is $5,000 to $10,000. ActionsFiled: Forfiscal year 1988-89, 941,008 cases were filed in the District 0.8:.:9' Courts around the state; that is a 10% increase over filings in the previous 0.6 fiscal year. Traffic violations cases constituted the bulk of case filings, ••' ... making up 92% offilings. Civil actions 0.4 .-• accounted for approximately 3% of fil •• •••' ings, criminal actions 4%, and other 0.2 ' .... ".- ••• 11 •• • violations 1%. • • L~ •••••• Terminations: A total of892,480 cases " 0.0 .' were terminated in the District Courts 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 during fiscal year 1988-89. Termina FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 tions in all areas increased over the year before, for a total increase of 16%. ___ Filings ..... Caseload _ .... _ Tenninations II II II II Pending Specifically, the increases in termina tionsoverfiscal year 1987-88 were 16% for traffic violations, 12% for civil cases, The Counseling and Probation new supervision cases during fiscal year 15% for criminal cases, and 14% for Services Division provides two serv 1988-89, which were added to 4,550 other violations. ices. It provides pre-sentence reports cases which remained open from the Pending Cases: The pending caseload and makes appropriate recommenda previous fiscal year. Ofthesecases, the in the District Courts at the end of fiscal tions to the District Court judges. Act Division closed 4,731 cases, and 4,484 year 1988-89 stood at 501,953 cases, ing in this capacity, the Division added cases remained pending at the end of the reflecting an increase of 11 % from the 1,884 new pre-sentence case to the 1,660 fiscal year. beginning of the fiscal year. By cate cases that remained open from the pre The Division of Driver Education gory, the increases were: civil actions, vious year. The Division completed coordinates and administers a compre 16%; traffic violations, 11%; criminal action on 2,340 of these pre-sentence hensive traffic safety education pro actions, 4%; and other violations, 21 %. cases, leaving 1,204 cases open at the gram for both adults and juvenile traffic The major program components of end of fiscal year 1988-89. offenders. Service s are offered on all the District Courts also include the The second function of the Coun islands, and include counseling, instruc Counseling and Probation Services seling and Probation Services Division tion, public information and commu Division, and the Division of of Driver is aiding victims of crime and supervis nity education. Education. ing probationers. There were 4,675 28 Land Court Tax Appeal Court The Land Court is a statewide court of The Tax Appeal Court has jurisdiction record that has jurisdiction over appli over disputes between the tax assessor cations for original registrations ofland. and taxpayer, including excise, liquor, The court also presides over petitions income, property and insurance taxes. for subdivisions, designations and dele Actions Filed: In fiscal year 1988-89, tions of easements, erosions and accre 107 cases were filed in the Tax Appeal tions of Land Court estates, and clarifi court. In addition, 98 cases were pend cation and updating of the status of ing at the start of the fiscal year, for a Land Court property. total Tax Appeal Court caseload of 205 Land Court registrars serve as court cases for the fiscal year. clerks, research and process applica Terminations and Pending Cases: The tions, resolve disputes outside the court Tax Appeal Court terminated a total of where possible, and offer research as 72 cases, or 35% of the court's total sistance to the lay, legal and business caseload, during the 1988-89 fiscal year. communities. 133 cases remained pending at the close Actions Filed: In fiscal year 1988- of the fiscal year. 1989, 14 contested cases were filed in the Land Court. Combined with the 60 cases pending at the state of the fiscal year, this gave the Land Court a total caseload of74 cases for the fiscal year. Filings of ex parte petitions, which are one-party petitions not requiring court action, totaled 4,000 in fiscal year 1988-89, a29% decrease from the 5,634 filings in the previous fiscal year. Terminations and Pending Cases: A total of 13 contested cases were termi nated during fiscal year 1988-89, leav ing 61 cases pending at the end of the fiscal year. 29 pI --I i .,', [) o Administration o Administrative Court Progratns Adtninistrators Alternative Dispute Resolution First Judicial Circuit Peter Adler Circuit Court Children's Advocacy Program Clyde Namuo Judith E. Lind District Court Administrative Director Edward Lee Court Staff Attorney of the Courts Family Court Irwin LTanaka Abelina Shaw Kenneth Ling Fiscal and Support Services Second Judicial Circuit In June, Administrative Director Janice Jeffrey Agader Wolf left the Judiciary and returned to Circuit Court private law practice. Judge Toshimi Information and Data Processing Robert Monden Sodetani returned as Interim Adminis trative Director, a position he also held Internal Audit District Court in 1985-86. Eichi Shigemasu Louneille Medeiros In October 1989, chief Justice Probation & Family Court Herman Lum, selecting from an exten Law Library Fred Tamasaka sive list of applicants, appointed Dr. Momoe Tanaka Irwin L Tanaka as Administrative Di Third Judicial Circuit rectofof the Courts. Office of the Public Guardian Dennis Hilty Circuit Court Eleanor Mirikitani Office of the Sheriff District Court Deputy Administrative Director Maile Nakayama Thomas Okuda Personnel Management Kenneth Nakamatsu Family & Probation Services AileenLum Planning and Budget Fifth Judicial Circuit Program Services Earl Yonehara Circuit Court Steven Okihara Public Affairs Office District Court Chapman L. Lam Kayo Mikasa Family & Adult Probation Services Sherwood Hara 32 '..:.. Personnel Statistics RECRUITMENT & EXAMS 1988 PERSONNEL TRANSACTIONS, FY 88·89 Open Competitive Exams: Totals Accesions to the Service: Totals Probational Appointment 88 Open-Comp Anouncements 68 Limited Term Appointment 45 Applications Received 1,846 Exempt Appointment 57 Applications Established on Eligible Lists 710 Intergovernmental Movement 30 Written and Performance Tests 185 Temporary Appointment Outside of List 25 (Includes Training & Experience Ratings) 245 Promotional Exams: Totals Separations from the Service: Totals Promotional Annoumcements 39 Death 3 Applications Received 118 Retirement 19 Applicants Established on Eligible Lists 83 Resignation 117 Internal (Non·Comp Exams): Totals Termination of Limited Term Appointment 31 Tennination of Exempt Appointment 2 Internal Vacancy Announcements 400 Intergovernmental Movement 30 Applications Received 632 Dismissal 1 Applicants Referred to Divisions 426 203 Other Personnel Transactions: Totals Promotions 114 Demotions 3 STATUS REPORT OF POSITIONS Reallocations 61 AUTHORIZED BY 1989 LEGISLATURE Transfers 33 Suspensions 8 New Conv Total Limited Term Promotions 29 Authorized 143 45 138 Pay Changes 1,200 Classified 123 38 161 Temporary Assignments 556 Pending 20 7 27 Summer Student Program 158 Health Fund Benefit Changes 753 (Categorization of positions as "New" or "Conversions" follows categories used in budget and legislative docu- Verifications of Employment 275 ments to facilitate cross reference). 3,190 33 .: ~, () Chun-Hoon, Madeline J. Goodman, dent and House Speaker one each, and Judicial Council John Jubinsky, James H. Kamo, Ivan the membership of the Hawaii Barelects M. Lui-Kwan, Linda K. C. Luke, B. two. The Judicial Council serves as an advi Martin Luna, Marjorie Higa Manuia, The current members of the sory board to the Hawaii Supreme Court, Nobol'll Nakagawa, Clifford L. Nakea, Commission are Gerard A. Jervis (chair), assisting in the administration of the Carolyn Staats, Manuel R. Sylvester, Howard Mukai, Helen Colburn-Rohn, judicial system. Members representing Allen C. Wilcox, Jr., and Dr. Stanley F. C. Michael Hare, Bert T. Kokayashi, a cross-section of the business, educa H. Wong. Jr., Harold K. M. Lau, Raymond Tam, tional, government, labor and legal com and Tommy Trask. munities serve staggered three-year Commission on terms. The Chief Justice acts as chair of the Council. Judicial Discipline Board of Examiners Council members are Chief Jus tice Helman T. F. Lum (chair), Dr. The Commision on Judicial Discipline The Board of Examiners is responsible Allan Izumi, Russell K. Okata, Jack R. is responsible for disciplining judges. for testing and certifying all applicants Corteway, Laurence Vogel, John P. Rules of the court require that three for the Hawaii Bar. Members are Mullen, Honorable Bambi E. Weil, I icensed attorneys and four citizens who Honorable Daniel G. Heely (chair), Daniel Kalekini, John Nielson, Harriet are not attorneys be appointed to stag Nathan T. K. Aipa, John R. Aube, Gee, Mari Matsuda, James E. Duffy, gered three-year terms. Michael L. Biehl, John C. Bryant, Jr., Jr., Honorable Toshimi Sodetani, Hon Members of the Commission Edward E. Case, Catherine O. Y. Chang, orable Daniel G. Heely, and Raymond are Kazuhisa Abe (chair), Robert L. Annette Y. W. Chock,RobertA. Chong, J. Tam. Stevenson, Lawrence S. Okinaga, Man Honorable Darryl Y. C. Choy, William Kwong Au, Alfred J. Costa, Francis F. Crockett, Mark B. Desmaris, Keala and Harriette L. Holt. William H. Dodd,Jr., Helen W. Gillmor, The Disciplinary Matthew S. Goodbody, Kenneth B. Hipp, ColeenK. Hirai, Matthew T. Ihara, Board of the Hawaii Judicial Selection Gerald H. Kibe, Honorable Robert G. Klein,JamesE. T. Koshiba,Benjamine Supreme Court COlnmission A. Kudo, Valri L. Kunimoto, Collin K. C. Lau, Gary B. K. T. Lee, Peter J. The Disciplinary Board investigates Under the Hawaii Constitution, the Lenhart, James W. Licke, Laurie A. allegations of misconduct by attorneys. Judicial Selection Commission is re Loomis, Cora K. Lum, Melody K. Upon sufficient evidence, the Board sponsible for reviewing applicants for MacKenzie, Linda S. Martell, Howard takes necessary and appropriate disci judgeships in Hawaii COUtts, submit A. Matsuura, Roy M. Miyamoto, John plinary action. tingalistofsixnominees to the appoint P. Moon, Michael J. Moroney, Miki Chief Disciplinary Counsel ing authority of each vacancy. From Okumura, Lester D. Oshiro, Seth M. Gerald Kibe heads the Office of Disci this list, the Governor, with the consent Reiss, Sandra A. Simms, James J. Stone, plinary Counsel, which acts as the op of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Stanley D. Suyat, Kevin Taylor, Ruth 1. erational arm of the Disciplinary Supreme Court, and Judges to the Inter Tsujimura, Lillian R. Uy, Diana L. Van Board. Funding for Board operation is mediate Court of Appeals and Circuit De Car, Iwalani D. White, Donna M. derived entirely from annual license Court. The Chief Justice appoints Dis Woo, Dean M. Yamashiro, and Wil fees paid by the state's practicing trict Court and District Family Court liam W. L. Yuen. attorneys. Judges. The Commission has sale au Members of the Disciplinary thority to act on reappointments to judi Board are C. Jepson Garland (chair), cialoffice. Helen Gillmor, Dwight M. Rush, Nine members serve on the Judi Edward Y. C. Chun, Dr. Albert C. K. cial Selection Commission for staggered terms of six years. The Governor ap points three members, the Chief Justice appoints two members, theSenatePresi- 36 ,:',:'Z ..;' '" -r.... ' ',' I o Financial Resources The Hawaii State Judiciary Expenditures (including encumrances) by Source of Funding and Amounts The Hawaii State Legislature makes July 1,1988 to June 30, 1989 appropriations to the Judiciary for the Fiscal Year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following year. Trust Funds More than 97% of the Judiciary's oper .17% ($108,503) ating budget comes from the State Federai Funds General Fund and State Capital Fund. .24% (150,462) Other funding sources include federal State Special funds, trust funds and special revenue Revenue Fund funds such as assessments against 1.8% ($1,183,689) insured motor vehicles. State Capital The Legislature appropriated Project Fund State General Fund $61,437,968 from the State General 4.76% ($3,008,287) 92.96% ($58,789,666) Fund for operations during the fiscal Total = $63,240,607 year, and $4,000,000 was appropriated to the JUdiciary from the S~ate Capital Project Fund. The Hawaii State Judiciary The Judiciary places monies col Sources and amounts of revenue lected from court costs, fees, fines, and with disposition of revenue Fiscal Year 1988-89 forfeitures into the State Gen{;ral Fund for allocation and disbursement to vari Revenue ous State departments through the Leg Miscellaneous Revenues islature. More than 76% of the court's 3.07% ($564,002) revenues come from fines an~ forfei tures, while approximately 18% comes Interest 2.78% ($510,635) from court costs ,fees, and other charges. Court Costs, Fees, and Charges 17.97% ($3,300,276) Fines, and Forfeitures 76.18% ($13;993,587) Total = $18,368,500 Disposition of revenue Trust and Agency Funds 1.12% ($204,978) State Special Fund Parking Revolving Fund .78% ($143,804) State Special Fund Driver Education and Training Fund State General Fund 8.46% ($1,554,991) 89.64% ($16;464,727) Total = $18,368,500 38 The Hawaii State Judiciary Appropriation for both Circuit Courts and District Courts State General Fund Appropriations by amount and percent of total, Fiscal Year 1988·89 ~~~ ~S2) G U o Mo\okai, Oahu Maui,Lanai Hawaii Kauai, Niihau First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fifth Circuit $36,621,152 $5,458,949 $4,889,508 $1,743,697 59.61% 8.88% 7.96% 2.84% Statewide Operations Courts of Appeal $2,206,298 3.59% Land Courtffax Court 184,672 .30% Administrative Director Services 9,597,281 15.57% Law Library 766,411 1.25% Total $61,437,968 The Hawaii State Judiciary Appropriations by amount and percent of totals, Fiscal Year 1988·89 State General Fund State Capital Project Fund The Judiciary The Legislature The judiciary The Legislature $61,437,968 $14,623,622 $4,000,000 $.00 2.84% .68% 1.00% .00% ,The Executive' $2,085,491,373 . 9q,48% . 39 For the Statistical Supplement to the Hawaii State JUdiciary Annual Report and for furthur information regarding the Hawaii State Judiciary, write to the Public Affairs Office, 417 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813