I concur with both the interpretation of the Hawai`i Rules of Appellate
procedure and with the result reached by the majority. However, given that:
(1) no constitutional issues were raised by the parties; (2) there is no
controlling federal constitutional authority on point;
(1) and (3) "[i]t is axiomatic that appellate courts should pass
upon constitutional issues only where the case is such that a decision
of such issues is unavoidable," State v. Kam, 68 Haw. 631, 635,
726 P.2d 263, 266 (1986), I do not interpret the majority's opinion as
deciding any constitutional issues.
1. The majority cites Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); and Johnson v. Avery, 393, U.S. 483 (1969) in support of the proposition that requiring the plaintiff to produce the envelope indicating when he turned his notice of appeal to prison authorities "would deny Plaintiff meaningful access to the courts." Majority Op. at 16. I note that these cases, and the quotes cited therefrom, address prisoners' right to adequate legal resources and assistance in preparing habeas corpus and civil rights actions.