Surfer denied bail in domestic violence case

Swipe left for more photos

Subscribe Now Choose a package that suits your preferences.
Start Free Account Get access to 7 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber? Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.

A big-wave surfer accused of domestic violence against his girlfriend will remain in jail while he awaits trial.

Hilo Circuit Judge Henry Nakamoto on Wednesday ordered 46-year-old Kealiiwainui “Kealii” Mamala of Keaau to be held without bail at Hawaii Community Correctional Center.

Mamala — who was invited to the 2025 Eddie Aikau Big Wave Invitational and who competed in the 2023 Eddie — faces 25 charges, including unlawful imprisonment, three counts of second-degree assault, domestic abuse aggravated by strangulation, 14 counts of domestic abuse, two counts each of second-degree terroristic threatening and prohibited possession of a firearm, plus prohibited possession of ammunition.

According to court documents, Mamala allegedly restrained, struck, kicked, head-butted, strangled and hit the 34-year-old woman with a garbage-can lid and an aluminum fishing pole holder. The offenses allegedly occurred between November 2024 and earlier this month.

There are two cases against Mamala, both being heard by Nakamoto, and the charges in both are similar.

Mamala’s court-appointed attorney, Donald Wilkerson, requested the cases remain separate, and Mamala — who has pleaded not guilty to all charges — is scheduled for trial starting July 21 in one case and Aug. 4 in the other.

The victim didn’t testify Wednesday. Deputy Prosecutor Kirsten Selvig said it’s believed the woman is off-island.

The woman’s mother took the witness stand for the prosecution and said her daughter had worked two jobs and had her own apartment, but lost the apartment in December.

“She couldn’t pay for her apartment because Kealii wouldn’t let her go to work,” the mother said. “On top of her having bruises and always getting beat up. She couldn’t go to work like that. He didn’t want her to go to work, didn’t want her having that apartment, because he thought — according to what (the victim) said — that she was (having sex with) guys over there.”

The victim’s mother testified Mamala came to her house while her daughter was there, and a confrontation between Mamala and the mother ensued.

“I told (the victim) that people like him don’t change. And that’s when he started getting angry, and he started mouthing off at me,” the mother said.

“And how did that incident end?” asked Selvig.

“He threatened to take her away from me and I would never see her again. He threatened to cause harm. He said his brothers would be involved.”

“Did (the victim) end up going home with you or with Mr. Mamala?” the prosecutor inquired.

“With Kealii,” the mother replied.

Hawaii Police Department Acting Detective Corey Kaneko testified a search warrant for Mamala’s home turned up a 1903 Springfield Armory .30 caliber rifle and a Snake Charmer, a pistol which fires a 410 shotgun shell.

Kaneko said he was present on March 2 when the victim was examined in the emergency room of Hilo Benioff Medical Center.

“She had bruising to her face, she had bruising to both left and right arms,” Kaneko testified. “She had a cut on top of her left elbow. She had large bruising on her right thigh and other miscellaneous bruising all over that leg, and bruising to her left leg.”

According to Kaneko, the emergency room physician indicated the victim “had multiple contusions, a concussion, a right (eardrum) perforation and a nasal fracture.”

Mamala didn’t testify, but Kaneko said he answered questions when interviewed by police.

“Basically, he was saying that (the victim’s mother) was trying to get him in trouble. She doesn’t like him,” Kaneko said. “He would say that … she would constantly, like, try to get in the way of their relationship.”

Selvig said Mamala, against court orders, called the victim from HCCC. A recording was played in court.

“I just want to call you and say I’m sorry. … I’m never going to do this to you ever again,” Mamala said during the brief call. “I really mean that, you know. … I love you. I want to marry you. … I trust you, baby.”

The victim replied, but her voice was too soft for the Tribune-Herald to hear clearly.

In addition, photos were shown documenting extensive bruising on the victim’s body.

In her closing argument, Selvig told the judge Mamala remains a risk to intimidate the victim and her mother.

“So far, all of the evidence that’s been presented is that he is almost a textbook abuser, to include the use of loving language to try and create a world in which it’s him and (the victim) against the world, where he isolated her from her mother, isolated her from her friends, isolated her from the rest of her family.

“It is as classic as it gets, and there’s no reason to believe it will stop.”

Wilkerson requested bail be set.

“What we have here is Mr. Mamala’s Eighth Amendment right to bail versus the need of the court to ensure that he’s not a danger to the public,” the lawyer argued. “What we have in this case is not unusual circumstances. We have Mr. Mamala charged with abuse. This court has seen this type of abuse before. … These are Class C felonies, not Class B, not Class A, and they are not murder. … The state could reasonably argue for a higher bail, possibly, but not for the defendant to be held without bail.

“The state contends that (Mamala) violated … Judge (Peter) Kubota’s order not to contact (the victim). Well, when Mr. Mamala did contact (the victim), he didn’t threaten her, he didn’t try to intimidate her. He appeared loving and kind.”

Nakamoto acknowledged domestic violence cases are heard every day in court.

“But what sets this apart is … with the search warrant that did uncover firearms … that leads this court to believe that the defendant could carry out such a threat,” the judge said. “The court also notes that the injuries were extensive, in this court’s view, and repeatedly occurred. The court is also troubled that we do not know where the complaining witness is. And maybe most significant is that the defendant did not comply with the court’s order to not contact the complaining witness.”

Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.