State v. Haanio
Decision Date | 31 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 21720.,21720. |
Citation | 94 Haw. 405,16 P.3d 246 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Respondent-Appellee, v. Oliver HAANIO, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Dwight C.H. Lum, on the application, Honolulu, for petitioner-appellant.
We affirm the affirmance by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (the ICA) of the June 19, 1998 judgment of conviction and sentence of Petitioner-Appellant Oliver Haanio, Jr. (Petitioner) for the included offense of robbery in the second degree, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-841 (1993). However, we disagree with the ICA's reformulation of the standard established in State v. Kupau, 76 Hawai`i 387, 879 P.2d 492 (1994), for governing a trial court's discretion in giving included offense instructions. For that reason, and to clarify other grounds for affirming Petitioner's conviction, we granted certiorari herein. We further hold, upon reexamination of the Kupau decision, that, in jury trials beginning after the filing date of this opinion, the trial courts shall instruct juries as to any included offenses having a rational basis in the evidence without regard to whether the prosecution requests, or the defense objects to, such an instruction.1
On April 23, 1997, Petitioner was charged by way of complaint with one count of robbery in the first degree, HRS § 708-840(1)(a) (1993),2 of Gilbert Kamoku. The complaint alleged in relevant part that "[o]n or about the 12th day of April, 1997, . . . [Petitioner,] while in the course of committing a theft, did attempt to kill or intentionally inflict or attempt to inflict serious bodily injury upon [Kamoku.]"
On January 20, 1998, the case proceeded to trial. Humphrey Goods testified that, at about 10:00 p.m. on April 12, 1997, while he and Robert Morris were sitting on a wall on River Street in Honolulu, he saw Petitioner approach Kamoku and hit him, causing Kamoku to fall to the ground. Once Kamoku was on the ground, Petitioner was observed kicking him several times. Approximately twenty minutes later, Goods approached Kamoku after being told that "something must be wrong." Morris testified he was sitting with Goods earlier when Petitioner challenged him to a fight and chased him around a car. Petitioner appeared intoxicated. Morris saw Petitioner walk down the street towards Kamoku, and ten minutes later Morris turned around and saw Kamoku lying on the ground and Petitioner walking away with a "friend." Petitioner approached Morris and again challenged him to a fight.
Charlotte Hammons testified that she observed, from fifty feet away, Petitioner "drinking" with Kamoku. She saw Kamoku give Petitioner some money, which Petitioner used to purchase beer at a nearby store. According to Hammons, Petitioner and Kamoku continued drinking until Petitioner stood up and requested more money from Kamoku. Hammons recalled that, at that moment, Petitioner choked Kamoku. When Petitioner released Kamoku, Kamoku fell to the ground. Petitioner yelled at Kamoku and kicked him. After Petitioner walked away from Kamoku, Hammons related that she and her boyfriend, Nick, approached Kamoku and found him lying on the sidewalk surrounded by blood. Goods observed that Kamoku's right pants pocket was turned inside out. Nick then called an ambulance.
An ambulance technician found Kamoku lying face down on the River Street sidewalk, with blood around his head and flowing from his nose and mouth. Kamoku arrived at the Queen's Medical Center comatose, barely breathing, and with bruises on his face, forehead, and around his eyes. The examining physician concluded that Kamoku had sustained a severe concussion.
Kamoku testified that he remembered something happening to him on April 12, 1997, but could not recall specifically what occurred. He only recollected "drinking," waking in the hospital, and being informed by a doctor that he had sustained a concussion. Kamoku did recount that he had money in his right front pocket on the day in question. He could not recall how much money he had, but remembered that he also had a wallet, food stamps, an identification card, and a bus pass, all of which were never recovered.
A police officer testified that Kamoku's bus pass was found by emergency "personnel" and provided to the officer when he was attempting to identify Kamoku at the scene of the crime.
At the close of the case-in-chief of Respondent-Appellee State of Hawai`i (the prosecution), the defense rested without presenting any evidence. Petitioner then moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied.3 Thereafter, the court presented the parties with proposed supplemental jury instructions regarding included offenses:
At the conference held to settle instructions, the defense objected to the court's proposed supplemental jury instruction no. 54 on the included offense of robbery in the second degree, as defined in HRS § 708-841(1)(c).5
The prosecution had submitted a proposed included offense instruction on robbery in the second degree, State's supplemental instruction no. 1, but withdrew it at the settlement conference.
The court's supplemental instructions no. 6, regarding the purported included offense of assault in the first degree, as defined in HRS § 707-710(1),6 and no. 7A, dealing with the included offense of assault in the second degree,7 as defined in HRS § 707-711(1)(a) and (b),8 were also given over Petitioner's objections.9
The court subsequently conducted a colloquy with Petitioner, wherein it informed him of the included offenses and advised him that these offenses carried lesser penalties than the charged offense. Petitioner indicated he objected to the jury being instructed on lesser included offenses.
Nevertheless, the court gave its supplemental jury instructions nos. 5, 6, and 7A. After deliberations, the jury found Petitioner guilty of the included offense of robbery in the second degree. The court sentenced Petitioner to ten years' imprisonment, as set forth in its June 19, 1998 judgment of conviction and sentence.
On appeal, which was assigned to the ICA, Petitioner argued for reversal of his conviction on the grounds that: (1) the court erred in denying his oral motion for judgment of acquittal for lack of substantial evidence that Petitioner acted in the course of committing theft; (2) the jury was improperly instructed on the offenses of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, because these offenses are not included in the offense of robbery in the first degree; and (3) the court erred in instructing the jury on the offense of robbery in the second degree because (a) "[i]f the [prosecution's] witnesses were to be believed, then [his] action could only be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jess
...in which trial is not completed until after the date of [the] decision"); Fortin, 843 A.2d at 1037; see also State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai`i 405, 407, 16 P.3d 246, 248 (2001) (partially overruling State v. Kupau, 76 Hawai`i 387, 879 P.2d 492 (1994), and holding that, "in jury trials beginning a......
-
State v. Adviento
...duty and ultimate responsibility to insure that juries are properly instructed on issues of criminal liability." State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai‘i 405, 415, 16 P.3d 246, 256 (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Flores, 131 Hawai‘i 43, 314 P.3d 120 (2013) . "[I]t is the trial judg......
-
Mata-Medina v. People
...on which it should have been instructed. State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i 356, 60 P.3d 306, 331 (2002) (quoting State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai'i 405, 16 P.3d 246, 256-57 (2001) (quoting State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 904 P.2d 912, 932 Thus, courts throughout the country that have considered the i......
-
State v. Deedy
...objects to, such an instruction." State v. Adviento, 132 Hawai'i 123, 140, 319 P.3d 1131, 1148 (2014) (quoting State v. Haanio, 94 Hawai'i 405, 407, 16 P.3d 246, 248 (2001), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Flores, 131 Hawai'i 43, 314 P.3d 120 (2013) ). Failure to do so will r......
-
Case Notes
...the court's failure to give the instruction on the lesser-included offense was not harmless, overruling State v. Haanio, 94 Hawaii 405, 16 P.3d 246 (2001), only to the extent that Haanio would hold such error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appeal Pointers An opening brief may be ......