The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2026, that Jonathan Ellway's conviction for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) must be vacated due to violations of his double jeopardy rights. This decision affects Ellway and sets a precedent regarding the substitution of judges during bench trials.
Ellway was convicted after a bench trial where the presiding judge was replaced mid-proceeding. The court found that the second judge's involvement constituted a new trial, violating Ellway's constitutional protections against being tried twice for the same offense.
Background
Jonathan Ellway was arrested on February 20, 2021, for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. He was charged with OVUII under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3). His trial began on September 17, 2021, before District Court Judge Kirstin M. Hamman, who heard testimony from the State's first witness.
However, before the trial could conclude, Judge Hamman was appointed to a circuit court position and could not render a judgment. A second judge, Blaine J. Kobayashi, was assigned to the case. The trial proceeded with the second judge, who heard the State's remaining evidence and found Ellway guilty.
Ellway appealed the conviction, arguing that the change of judges violated his rights under the double jeopardy clause of the Hawaii Constitution, which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) upheld the conviction, prompting Ellway to seek further review from the Hawaii Supreme Court.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ellway, stating that the district court erred in continuing the trial with a new judge. Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens wrote, "When the first judge departed Defendant’s bench trial mid-evidence, that judge discharged herself as that trial’s sole trier of fact."
The court emphasized that the change of judges created a situation where Ellway was effectively tried twice for the same offense without a proper mistrial being declared. The ruling stated, "The second judge, upon his appearance, should have considered a mistrial or an alternative and appropriate concluding order in those proceedings to give procedural finality to this unusual, premature departure of the trier of fact from Defendant’s bench trial."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases in Hawaii. It reinforces the principle that defendants have a right to be tried by the same judge who presided over the trial once jeopardy has attached. The court's decision clarifies that a substitution of judges during a bench trial, without proper procedures, can violate double jeopardy protections.
Ellway's case sets a precedent that may influence how trial courts handle situations where a judge must be replaced mid-trial. It underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants' rights are protected throughout the judicial process.
What's Next
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated Ellway's conviction and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss the charge with prejudice. This means that Ellway cannot be retried for the same offense. There are no indications in the court filing about potential appeals or related cases pending.