Background
The State alleged that Alika K. Amasiu assaulted his infant son on November 27, 2014. Five days before the three-year limitations period expired, the State filed a felony information in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit charging first-degree assault. That same day, an authorized district court judge found probable cause, set bail, and issued an arrest warrant, but the warrant was never served.
About a month later, the State filed a second information alleging the same offense in the Family Court of the Second Circuit. After another probable-cause finding and the service of a new arrest warrant, the State dismissed the first case. Years later, Amasiu moved to dismiss the family-court prosecution as untimely, arguing that the first information did not toll the limitations period because it was filed in the wrong court, reviewed by an unauthorized judge, and dismissed before service. The Family Court denied dismissal, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed, although on reasoning that differed from the ICA’s. It held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the first information and its probable-cause determination. Although HRS § 571-14(a)(1) gives the Family Court exclusive jurisdiction to try offenses committed against children by their parents, that trial jurisdiction did not invalidate the filing and probable-cause proceedings in Circuit Court. HRS §§ 806-84(g) and 806-85 expressly contemplate filing an information in circuit court and authorize that court to determine probable cause.
The court also held that the district court judge was authorized by HRS § 806-85(d) and a 2005 chief justice’s order to make the probable-cause determination. Finally, it held that, for limitations purposes, a prosecution by information commences when the information is “found”—that is, when a court finds probable cause—not merely when the information is filed. Because probable cause was found on the first information five days before the limitations period expired, the prosecution timely commenced and remained pending long enough to toll the limitations period. Service of the first information or warrant was unnecessary. The court remanded for further Family Court proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A prosecution initiated by information commences for statute-of-limitations purposes when a court finds probable cause, not when the information is merely filed.
- A family court’s exclusive jurisdiction to try a parent for an offense against the parent’s child does not invalidate the circuit court’s statutory authority to receive an information and conduct the probable-cause process.
- An authorized district court judge may find probable cause on a felony information, and an unserved arrest warrant does not defeat timely commencement based on that finding.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the event that stops Hawaiʻi’s criminal limitations clock when prosecutors charge by information. Courts must look to the date of the probable-cause finding, rather than the filing date or service of the resulting warrant.
It also delineates the respective roles of circuit and family courts: exclusive Family Court trial jurisdiction does not displace the Circuit Court’s statutory role in information-charging procedures. Prosecutors and defense counsel should therefore assess timeliness by examining both the charging document and the record of the probable-cause determination.