See also Igawa v. Koa House Rest., 97 Hawai'i 402, 409 n.6, 38 P.3d 570, 577 n.6 (2001) (presuming that administrative appeals board applied proper evidentiary standard of review where it did not expressly state the applicable standard (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 340, 984 P.2d 78, 99 (1999))).
A sua sponte decision to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact constitutes an exercise of a court's discretion. State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 328-29, 984 P.2d 78, 87-88 (1999) (citing Rule 201(c) of the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence). "Judicial notice or knowledge may be defined as the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof because they already know them."
Judicial notice of the prior proceedings extends to "the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, judgments[, ] and findings of fact and conclusions of law because of the principles of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and the law of the case." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 342, 984 P.2d 78, 101 (1999) (citation omitted).
Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999) ). In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai‘i 97, 119, 9 P.3d 409, 431 (2000).
Moreover, given that Nicoleta's medical conditions were sufficiently enumerated in the 2011 Divorce Decree and in Jacoby I, 134 Hawai'i at 436-37, 341 P.3d at 1236-37, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in taking notice of them. See Hawai'i Rules of Evidence Rule 201(c); State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 328-29, 984 P.2d 78, 87-88 (1999) (court may take notice of an adjudicative fact in its own record, with or without a request of the parties). For the same reason, there is no merit to Bennett's contention that the Family Court erred in FOF/COL 13, that Bennett "is and has always been fully aware" of Nicoleta's medical conditions and physical restrictions.
Accordingly, we examine the court's ruling for plain error. See State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 341, 984 P.2d 78, 100 (1999) (citing Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 103(a)(1) and (d) (1993)). See also Hawai'i Family Court Rules Rule 61.
Consequently, they argue, they could not have brought their claims to the TAC, because an appeal to the TAC must come from the BOR. The Taxpayers then assert that circuit courts exercise general jurisdiction, and that their subject matter extends to all matters properly brought before them unless precluded by constitution or statute, citing State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 326 n.9, 984 P.2d 78, 85 n.9 (1999). By contrast, they state, the TAC is a court of limited jurisdiction, hearing and deciding, without a jury, direct appeals from tax assessors’ assessments or decisions made by a county BOR, citing Lewis v. Kawafuchi, 108 Hawai‘i 69, 73, 116 P.3d 711, 715 (App. 2005).
On appeal, the appellate court's "task is not to determine whether the evidence was 'clear and convincing,' but, rather, whether there was sufficient evidence to enable a person of reasonable caution to arrive at the circuit court's [finding of fact]." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 345, 984 P.2d 78, 104 (1999). By enacting HRS § 334-161 in 2017, the legislature explicitly provided the trial courts with authority to issue an order permitting the involuntary administration of medication to a criminal defendant.
Additionally, "[f]actual allegations, conclusions, and findings, whether authored by the court, by the parties or their attorneys, or by third persons, should not be noticed to prove the truth of the matters asserted, even though the material happens to be contained in court records." Addison M. Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual § 201-5[4] (2016-2017 ed.) (citing Ditto v. McCurdy, 98 Hawai'i 123, 130, 44 P.3d 274, 281 (2002); State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 342, 984 P.2d 78, 101 (1999) (mental health experts' affidavits contained in circuit court file in same case did not qualify for judicial notice)). As the supreme court has recently reiterated, "'[a] distinction must be carefully drawn between taking judicial notice of the existence of documents in the Court file as opposed to the truth of the facts asserted in those documents.'"
5 were not met and harassment as therein defined was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Schermer, citing State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 341-42, 984 P.2d 78, 100-01 (1999), also argued that while the district court could take judicial notice of the existence of documents filed in the previous cases, it could not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts in those documents. He conceded, however, that he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating the facts or issues in Case 639.