Hawaii

Displaying 1 - 10 of 33
Titlesort ascending Summary
State v. Mortensen


Defendant found guilty of Cruelty to Animals under a State statute after firing a pellet gun at/toward a cat which was later found with and died from a fatal wound.

 

On Defendant’s appeal, the

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai’i affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that evidence that Defendant knowingly fired the pellet gun at a group of cats within the range of such a gun was sufficient to find that Defendant recklessly shot and killed the cat.

 

In making its decision, the Court of Appeals further found that the legislature clearly did not intend for a cat to be considered vermin or a pest for purposes of the relevant State anti-cruelty statute’s exception, and instead clearly intended for a cat to be considered a “pet animal.”

 


State v. Mita


Defendant, an owner of two dogs, both boxers, was charged with animal nuisance in violation of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu section 7-2.3. Mita’s counsel objected to the oral charge at trial, arguing "that the arraignment is [not] specific enough to put the defendant specifically on notice of what part of the . . . ordinance she’s being charged with." The district court denied Mita’s motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced her to pay a $50 fine. Mita appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court. On certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals and remanded the case, finding that the definition of animal nuisance in section 7-2.2 does not create an additional essential element of the offense; and, second, the definition of "animal nuisance" is consistent with its commonly understood meaning.

State v. LeVasseur


The trial court convicted defendant of first degree theft after he freed dolphins from a university laboratory. The court affirmed the conviction on appeal. It reasoned that the choice of evils defense was unavailable to defendant because the definition of "another" under Hawaii statute clearly did not include dolphins.

Overview of Hawaii Great Ape Laws This is a short overview of Hawaii Great Ape law.
HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife.

These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions.

HI - Wildlife - Chapter 124. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Introduced Wild Birds


The purpose of this chapter is to conserve, manage, protect, and enhance indigenous wildlife; and manage introduced wild birds.

HI - Veterinary - CHAPTER 471. VETERINARY MEDICINE.

These are the state's veterinary practice laws.  Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.

HI - Vehicle - § 291C-124. Obstruction to driver's view or driving mechanism This Hawaii law states that no person shall hold in his or her lap or allow to be in the driver's immediate area any animal that interferes with the "driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle."
HI - Trusts for domestic or pet animals. - CHAPTER 560. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE


This statute represents Hawaii's pet trust law.  The law provides that a pet trust is a valid purpose for a trust, and that such instruments are to be liberally construed to carry out the intent of the pet owner.  Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the transferor's intent.  Other aspects include an order for disbursement of remaining assets and a section that excludes these trusts from Hawaii's rule against perpetuities law.

HI - Therapy animals - [§ 323-51]. Animal therapy This Hawaii law allows common household pets to be brought into long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting patients. The institution can determine the rules for visitation. It also may require the animal owner o produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to the animal's good health.

Pages