Motion for Change of Venue in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Change of Venue

“It is well settled that a trial court possesses both the power and the responsibility to take affirmative measures to insure a defendant's sixth amendment right to a fair trial is not compromised and at the least to prevent or reduce prejudicial pretrial publicity.” (See Breiner v. Takao (1992) 73 Haw. 499, 503.)

“Limitations which localize actions within a given judicial circuit or division are venue requirements.” (See Cent. Pac. Bank v. Aikona Maui Props., LLC, No. CAAP-12-0001032, at *4 (Haw. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2013).)

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, the court upon motion of the defendant may transfer the proceeding as to the defendant or any one or more of the counts thereof to another district or circuit, whether or not such district or circuit is specified in the defendant's motion.” (See Haw. R. Pen. P. 21.)

“The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.” (See Westerdahl v. Boushley (2015) 353 P.3d 413.)

Request for Change of Venue under Rule 11

“A defendant may request a change of venue for hearings where no witnesses are subpoenaed. The venue change is limited to the circuit where the notice of infraction was issued.” (See Haw. Civ. Traff. R. 11.)

Change of Venue under Hawaii Revised Statutes Subsection 603-37

“After the parties shall have had an opportunity to be heard, any circuit court may, upon satisfactory proof that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any civil case pending in the court, or, in its discretion, upon satisfactory proof that it would be more fair and equitable to the parties thereto if any civil case pending in the court were heard in another jurisdiction, change the venue to some other circuit and order the record to be transferred thereto; provided that any circuit court may, in its discretion, upon the consent of all the parties to any civil case pending in the court, change the venue to some other circuit court and order the record to be transferred thereto.” (See Haw. Rev. Stat. sub. sec. 603-37; Kaui v. County of Kauai (1963) 47 Haw. 271, 273.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Change of Venue

“The trial judge comes to the evidence on the motion for a change of venue when it is fresh and when he has a chance to see the demeanor of the prospective jurors on voir dire.” (See State v. Moyd (1980) 1 Haw. App. 439, 442.)

As such, “the standard of review of the trial court's denial of [a] motion for change of venue is that the decision of the trial court shall not be disturbed on appeal unless the record indicates an abuse of discretion.” (See State v. Lincoln (1982) 3 Haw. App. 107, 115.)

“Thus, the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion that results in substantial prejudice to a party.” (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2016) 366 P.3d 160, 167.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2014) 341 P.3d 1200, 1212; Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2003) 102 Hawai‘i 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Change of Venue

It is well settled that “a trial court's denial of a motion for change of venue due to pretrial publicity is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See State v. Pauline (2002) 100 Haw. 356, 364.)

It is also well settled that “since venue requirements are based upon concepts which are unrelated to judicial power, requirements of venue may be waived." (See Alamida v. Wilson, 53 Haw. 398 (1972) 401, 495 P.2d 585, 588; In re Stevens (2021) 150 Haw. 218; Kaui v. County of Kauai (1963) 47 Haw. 271, 273.)