State v. Yokota
| Decision Date | 05 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-16-0000006 |
| Citation | 426 P.3d 424 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric N. YOKOTA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Christian G. Enright, (William H. Jameson, Jr., with him on the briefs), for petitioner/defendant-appellee
Brian R. Vincent for, respondent/plaintiff-appellant
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Eric N. Yokota (Yokota) was charged with five counts of forgery and one count of theft for fraudulently cashing five checks from the same bank account over the course of six days in December 2014. The question he presents on certiorari is whether Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i (the State) could simultaneously charge him with one count of theft as a continuing course of conduct and five individual counts of forgery.
Notwithstanding the five counts of forgery, because the language of our theft statute permits theft to be charged as a continuing course of conduct, we conclude that the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) erred in dismissing the theft charge as a matter of law. As the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) concluded the same, we affirm the ICA's July 26, 2017 judgment on appeal.
On June 23, 2015, Yokota was charged with several criminal counts stemming from five incidents, occurring over the course of six days, where he allegedly forged and cashed fraudulent checks. Specifically, the State alleged that:
On December 11, 2014, Yokota entered the Pearlridge branch of American Savings Bank (ASB) and presented a teller with an ASB check drawn on the account of Rudolph Kama (Kama). The check was made payable to "Cash" in the amount of $100, which the teller cashed for Yokota.
On December 12, 2014, Yokota entered the Stadium Mall branch of ASB and presented a teller with an ASB check drawn on Kama's account. The check was made payable to "Cash" in the amount of $175, which the teller cashed for Yokota.
On December 13, 2014, Yokota entered the Pearl City branch of ASB and presented a teller with an ASB check drawn on Kama's account. The check was made payable to "Eric Yokota" in the amount of $200, which the teller cashed for Yokota.
On December 15, 2014, Yokota again entered the Pearl City branch of ASB and presented a teller with an ASB check drawn on Kama's account. The check was made payable to "Cash" in the amount of $145, which the teller cashed for Yokota.
Finally, on December 16, 2014, Yokota entered the Salt Lake branch of ASB and presented a teller with an ASB check drawn on Kama's account. The check was made payable to "Cash" in the amount of $100, which the teller cashed for Yokota.
Each check that Yokota had allegedly cashed was less than $300 in value, but in the aggregate, totaled $720.
On January 6, 2015, Kama filed a police report alleging that seven checks were drawn on his personal account without his knowledge or authorization. Kama related that five of the seven forged checks were endorsed by Yokota. Kama further stated that he believed Yokota to be a friend of his deceased son's girlfriend.
Accordingly, Yokota was arrested on June 22, 2015 and charged with eight criminal counts by an amended felony information filed on June 30, 2015. The eight counts were charged as follows:
Count VI: Theft in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 708-831(1)(b),2 where Yokota "did obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property of [Kama] and/or [ASB], the value of which exceeds Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00), by deception, with intent to deprive [Kama] and/or [ASB] of the property."
Count VII: Unauthorized Possession of Confidential Personal Information, in violation of HRS § 708-839.55,3 where Yokota "did intentionally or knowingly possess, without authorization, any confidential personal information of [Kama] in any form...."
On August 4, 2015, Yokota filed a motion to dismiss Counts VI (theft in the second degree) and VIII (identity theft in the second degree) in the circuit court.5 Yokota argued that under the circumstances in his case, the State could not charge him with theft in the second degree because he did not steal "property or services the value of which exceeds $300" pursuant to HRS § 708-831(1)(b).
First, Yokota noted that no single check, by itself, exceeded the statutory minimum required to charge him for theft in the second degree.
Yokota further contended that this court's reasoning in State v. Decoite, 132 Hawai‘i 436, 323 P.3d 80 (2014), was directly applicable to his case. He noted that in Decoite, this court held that two instances of domestic physical abuse that occurred over a two-year period could not be charged as a continuing course of conduct offense because "physical abuse" was "necessarily discrete and episodic." 132 Hawai‘i at 438, 323 P.3d at 82. Similar to an incident of domestic violence, Yokota argued that each incident of theft was necessarily discrete in nature, as "[he] enter[ed] the bank, passe[d] the stolen check, [got] the money and the deed [was] done."
The State opposed Yokota's motion to dismiss and argued that the five alleged instances of theft were clearly committed under one scheme or course of conduct, and therefore, aggregation of the value of goods stolen was permitted by statute.6
Applying Castro, the State concluded that Yokota evinced "one general intent," which was "to steal money from [Kama]."
For support, the State explained that Yokota's conduct was more akin to the defendant's conduct in State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 616 P.2d 193 (1980), than Decoite. The State noted that in Martin, this court determined that the defendant engaged in a continuing course of criminal conduct when she filed multiple fraudulent public assistance claims over the course of several years, because the defendant was motivated by a single criminal impulse—to steal from the State.
The State argued that here, while Yokota did not submit fraudulent statements, "he did submit fraudulently executed checks over the course of time." Just as the defendant in Martin had a continuing intent to defraud the State, the State contended that Yokota "had the continuing intent to defraud Mr. Kama and he did so by continually submitting identical fraudulent checks." Thus, just as this court concluded in Martin, the State concluded that Yokota's acts constituted a continuing course of criminal conduct. As such, the State requested that the circuit court deny Yokota's motion to dismiss.
After holding a hearing on Yokota's motion to dismiss, the circuit court orally granted Yokota's motion and dismissed Counts VI and VIII with prejudice. Specifically, the circuit court stated, Yokota then pleaded no contest to the remaining counts against him, and the circuit court found him guilty of the five counts of forgery (Counts I to V) and the one count of unauthorized possession of confidential personal information (Count VII).
On December 8, 2015, the circuit court entered a written order granting Yokota's motion to dismiss Counts VI and VIII of the amended felony information with prejudice.
On January 6, 2016, the State filed a notice of appeal. In its opening brief, the State alleged that "[t]he circuit court erred by concluding the State was barred as a matter of law from charging Yokota's theft by passing 5 fraudulently executed checks over the course of 6 days as one scheme or course of conduct." Specifically, the State argued that the plain language of HRS § 708-801(6) allowed the State "to aggregate amounts obtained during individual instances of obtaining money from another by deception, even if the victim [was] not the same person in each individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lavoie
...cmt.42 Our case law has recognized several offenses that could be charged as continuous offenses. See, e.g., State v. Yokota, 143 Hawai‘i 200, 207, 426 P.3d 424, 431 (2018) (holding that forgery could be charged as a continuous offense); State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 289, 226 P.3d 441,......
-
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Hawaiian Monarch
...be considered a tenant at sufferance subject to eviction or ejectment." HRS § 667-102(c) (emphases added); see State v. Yokota, 143 Hawai‘i 200, 205, 426 P.3d 424, 429 (2018) ("[L]aws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other." (quotin......
-
State v. Shaw
...the Legislature explicitly considered that theft could be charged on a continuing course of conduct theory. State v. Yokota, 143 Hawai‘i 200, 205-06, 426 P.3d 424, 429-30 (2018). However, that Computer Fraud 3 is "predicated" on theft in the third or fourth degree does not answer the questi......
-
State v. Shaw
...the State was required to expressly allege that Shaw acted pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct.In State v. Yokota, 143 Hawai‘i 200, 205-06, 426 P.3d 424, 429-30 (2018), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that theft can be charged as a continuing course of conduct and that the alleged inst......