State v. Woody

Summary

The court rejected the Lee test in its entirety for motions to continue based on witness unavailability, holding that it is rigid, unworkable, and unfair. It held that a State continuance request must first be evaluated for due diligence under HRPP Rule 48(c)(4)(i); if due diligence is lacking but the Rule 48 deadline remains open, the court must apply a common-law good-cause totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Although the State lacked due diligence, good cause supported a reasonable continuance, so the court affirmed the ICA's vacatur of the suppression order and remanded.