Hawaii Supreme Court accepts case on biological evidence rules

The Hawaii Supreme Court has accepted a case involving Michael Arlo Pavich, who is challenging the state's handling of biological evidence in his criminal case. This decision could have significant implications for how evidence is managed in the state and the rights of defendants.

The court's ruling comes after Pavich filed an application for a writ of certiorari on May 27, 2026. The court's acceptance of the application means that it will hear arguments regarding the state's obligations and the potential remedies available when biological evidence is not retained as required by law.

The case, docketed as SCWC-23-0000334, has raised important questions about the legal standards governing evidence retention in Hawaii. Specifically, the court will consider whether Pavich is entitled to a remedy due to the state's failure to retain biological evidence under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 844D-126.

Background

The parties in this case are the State of Hawaii, represented as the Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, and Michael Arlo Pavich, the Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. The dispute centers around the state's obligation to preserve biological evidence that could be crucial to a defendant's case.

In Pavich's case, the biological evidence was not retained, leading him to question whether this failure impacts his rights under HRS chapter 844D, Part XI. This chapter outlines the procedures and responsibilities related to the preservation of biological evidence in criminal cases.

The case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court after being reviewed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case indicates its importance in clarifying the legal framework surrounding evidence retention and the rights of defendants.

The Ruling

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled to accept Pavich's application for a writ of certiorari, allowing the case to proceed to oral argument. In its order, the court instructed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing two key questions:

“1. If waiver does not affect his rights under HRS chapter 844D, Part XI, is Pavich entitled to a remedy based on the State’s failure to retain biological evidence under HRS § 844D-126?”

“2. What are appropriate remedies for failure to comply with the requirements under HRS § 844D-126, given the overall statutory scheme in HRS chapter 844D, Part XI?”

The court's order was signed by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens and Justices Sabrina S. McKenna, Todd W. Eddins, Lisa M. Ginoza, and Circuit Judge James H. Ashford, who was assigned to the case due to a vacancy.

Impact

This ruling has the potential to set important legal precedents regarding the retention of biological evidence in Hawaii. If the court finds that Pavich is entitled to a remedy, it could lead to changes in how the state handles evidence preservation, impacting future criminal cases.

The outcome may also affect defendants' rights statewide, ensuring that they have access to critical evidence that could influence the outcome of their trials. This case highlights the importance of following established legal protocols for evidence retention and the consequences of failing to do so.

What's Next

The parties involved in the case are required to submit their supplemental briefs by August 20, 2026. The court will schedule oral arguments following the submission of these briefs. It remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed further, depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling.