The sanctions record · Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi, 2026
State of Hawaiʻi v. Presti
State of Hawaiʻi v. Cody Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826, Dkt. 109 OP · filed 31 August 2026 · for publication in West’s Hawaiʻi Reports and the Pacific Reporter
Page verified 1 September 2026. Court document read in full, 35 pages. Container: AI Hallucination Cases tracker copy of the court’s document; not downloaded from the court’s website. No sanction was imposed in this matter.
A self-represented criminal appellant filed an opening brief citing authorities that do not exist. The court declined to extend the civil sanctions rule, HRCP Rule 11, to a direct criminal appeal, because doing so may intrude on rights under the Hawaiʻi Constitution. It then held that the appellate rules already reach the conduct: each citation to nonexistent authority is a basis for sanction under HRAP Rules 30 and 51, in criminal cases as well as civil ones. The court declined to sanction Presti and decided the appeal on ordinary principles of appellate review. The judgment was affirmed.
The record
- CourtIntermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi
- CaseNo. CAAP-24-0000826, docket entry 109 OP
- Filed31 August 2026
- StatusFor publication in West’s Hawaiʻi Reports and the Pacific Reporter
- PartySelf-represented criminal appellant
- Brief95 authorities cited; 41 the court could reliably identify; eleven could not be located or were demonstrably wrong
- Rule declinedHRCP Rule 11, not extended to a direct criminal appeal
- Rules held to applyHRAP Rules 30 and 51, read with Rule 28(b)(7); Rule 1(d) applies them to self-represented parties
- SanctionNone imposed
- DispositionAffirmed
What the court held
The court declined to make HRCP Rule 11 applicable to direct appeals in a criminal matter, particularly where the defendant is self-represented, because doing so may intrude on rights under article I, sections 5, 10 and 14 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. That is the part of the opinion that limits the reach of a civil sanctions rule.
The court then held that the constitutional right to present a complete defence “does not authorize a defendant to cite to nonexistent authority”, and that the appellate rules already supply the answer:
“each citation to nonexistent authority constitutes a basis for sanction under HRAP Rules 30 and 51”
Those rules apply in criminal appeals as well as civil ones. The court read them with HRAP Rule 28(b)(7), whose requirement of citation to authorities “undoubtedly requires citation to authorities that actually exist”, and noted that HRAP Rule 1(d) applies the same requirement to self-represented parties.
Among the citations the court could not locate was “State v. Pune, 94 Hawaii 200 (2000)”. In some instances the proposition advanced was contradicted by controlling law of the jurisdiction cited.
Footnote 8 records that the State did not raise the nonexistent authority in its answering brief. The court identified it itself.
What the opinion cites
The published opinion cites Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases database by URL, with a perma.cc link, last visited 11 August 2026. It also cites Mata v. Avianca and Wadsworth v. Walmart, both already on this record.
It cites one Hawaiʻi predecessor, Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence, 156 Hawaiʻi 179, 571 P.3d 958 (App. 2025), in which the same court sanctioned an attorney $100.00 for citing a single nonexistent case “without first attempting to read it to confirm his contention of its holding”. We have read that account in the Presti opinion; we have not yet opened the Keaau opinion itself, and say so here rather than present it as verified at source.
Why it matters
Most entries on this record are a court applying a sanctions rule written for exactly this kind of failure. This one is different, and more useful, because it shows a court reaching the same conduct through rules that were already there.
The civil rule was held back, on constitutional grounds, from a self-represented criminal appellant. The appellate rules were not. A requirement to cite authorities was read to mean authorities that actually exist, and that reading applies to a party without a lawyer.
Courts are not waiting for a bespoke rule about AI before they can act. The obligation being enforced is the ordinary one: that what is put in front of a court can be checked, and turns out to be real.
The lesson for the next filing
The court found the defective citations itself, after the other side did not raise them. Ninety-five authorities went in; forty-one could be reliably identified. Nobody produced a record, at the time of filing, of which of them had actually been read.
A sealed record of what a person checked, made before the question is asked, answers that at the moment it is raised rather than months later.
Generate the certification → · Verify a sealed record free →
Sources
- State of Hawaiʻi v. Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826, Dkt. 109 OP, filed 31 August 2026. Court document read in full, 35 pages. Container: the copy held by the AI Hallucination Cases database, not downloaded from the court’s website. The same database is cited inside the opinion.
- Hawaiʻi State Judiciary, opinions and orders, where the court publishes its own decisions
Related
- The full sanctions record
- Benjamin v. State, a criminal appeal where a referral was expressly declined
- Parnell v. Florida Dept of Corrections, a published federal appellate decision
- The judges’ AI orders, one page each
Verified 1 September 2026 against the court’s published opinion. Quotations are from that opinion. The Keaau v. Lawrence decision is reported here only as the Presti opinion describes it. Information, not legal advice.
Information, not legal advice. Every entry is verified against the court’s own document or contemporaneous reporting; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.