State v. Abella
| Decision Date | 17 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-16-0000004 |
| Citation | 454 P.3d 482 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Limjuco ABELLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Dana S. Ishibashi, Honolulu, for petitioner
Chad M. Kumagai (Brandon H. Ito on the brief), for respondent
This case requires us to determine whether a defendant may be convicted of homicide if the victim’s death was the immediate result of a choice by the victim’s family to withdraw medical care. Michael Limjuco Abella was charged with Murder in the Second Degree after severely beating Shelton Higa on July 17, 2014. Higa was comatose for more than a week thereafter; medical professionals estimated that his chances of survival were slim, and if he did survive, his quality of life would likely be poor. He was removed from life support and declared dead on July 29, 2014, twelve days after the altercation. In the Circuit Court for the First Circuit, a jury found Abella guilty of the lesser-included offense of Manslaughter. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction.
Abella argues that a defendant in these circumstances cannot be charged and convicted of a homicide due to a provision in the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act that prohibits designating as a homicide any "[d]eath resulting from the withholding or withdrawal of health care" under the Act. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 327E-13(b) (2010). Abella asserts that the plain language of the statute shields him from conviction under these circumstances. We disagree. Viewing the Act as a whole and given the historical context that led to its passage, it is clear that the legislature intended to protect medical professionals and family members making difficult choices, not actors like Abella.
However, we nonetheless vacate the judgment on appeal and remand this case for a new trial. Abella argues, and we agree, that the jury should have been given instructions on causation pursuant to HRS §§ 702-215 (2014) and 702-216 (2014). Those instructions would have enabled the jury to consider whether the intervening volitional conduct of the family and medical team interrupted the chain of causation between Abella’s actions and Higa’s death such that it would be unfair or unjust to hold him criminally culpable for homicide. While we recognize without qualification that the decision to remove a loved one from life support is difficult and serious, and the law protects that choice, nevertheless, the issues of causation raised in this case must be decided by a jury. Consequently, we hold that it was plain error for the circuit court to fail to instruct the jury on causation and culpability pursuant to HRS §§ 702-215 and 702-216.
Abella was charged by indictment in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit with Murder in the Second Degree in violation of HRS § 707-701.5 (2014).1 His jury trial began on September 21, 2015.2
The following testimony was adduced at trial.
Witnesses Ronald Landrio and Donald King each testified that on July 17, 2014, at approximately 8:45 p.m., they were at the intersection of Smith and Pauahi Streets in Honolulu when they heard the sound of a glass bottle breaking. Each looked in the direction of the sound and saw Shelton Higa fall to the ground.
Landrio further testified that after Higa fell to the ground, a man stood over Higa and began punching him. King testified that after Higa fell to the ground, a man, whom he identified as Abella, began "very violently" kicking Higa several times, "trying to strike his head as much as he can." As Higa was on the ground, King noticed that Higa was "holding his head" and "trying to protect himself." King testified that he saw Higa getting struck "[i]n the head, in the shoulders, and arms, because ... [Higa was] trying to cover his face and his head."
Landrio testified that while the man was punching Higa, a group of people went over and stopped the man. The man then left the area.
An ambulance and police officers arrived at the scene at 9:04 pm. Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Celestino Herana testified that he was dispatched to Smith and Pauahi Streets on an assault call at approximately 8:54 p.m. and met Higa. Higa was holding the right side of his head, which was red and swelling. Officer Herana detected a slight odor of alcohol emanating from Higa’s breath, but Higa was coherent. Officer Herana took photographs of the scene, had Higa fill out paperwork, and left.
Kell Tanabe, Jr., then a paramedic-in-training for the City and County of Honolulu, testified to examining Higa and witnessing superficial lacerations to the right side of his face and a hematoma3
to his right temple. Tanabe testified that Higa’s vital signs were stable and that Higa refused a ride to the hospital.
Antoinette Tuituu testified that she saw the ambulance leave, and she went over to talk to Higa. She said that Higa was sitting at first, and then he got on his hands and knees, trying to stand up and return to the ambulance. She recounted that Higa said he felt dizzy, and he asked Tuituu to call the ambulance again.
Tuituu continued that as Higa was on his hands and knees, "[t]hat guy came ( [pointing to Abella in the courtroom] ) and starting hitting him just out of the blue[.]" Tuituu testified that Abella "was wild" and hitting Higa on the head with both hands. After seeing Higa get hit about "five, six times," Tuituu ran to the police station about a block away to get help.
King testified that he saw Abella kicking Higa "more than several ... maybe up to 14 or 20" times. He said that Higa was attempting to get away, but since there was a wall in front of him, it was "like he’s trying to crawl into the wall to get away from this guy."
Landrio testified that he intervened after seeing "the same figure[,]" whom he identified as Abella, "beating on [Higa] again." Landrio noted that Higa was not fighting back during the incident because of his poor health.
Landrio "came up behind [Abella] and grabbed him to stop him from hitting [Higa] again." Landrio and Abella then started punching each other, causing Landrio’s glasses to go "flying" off of his face, and for Landrio to have a bloody nose and hurt shoulder. Landrio testified: According to Landrio, Abella then walked back toward Higa, hit him a few more times, and "just walked off down Pauahi Street."
Tuituu testified that after she returned from the police station to call for help, she saw Abella walking away. Tuituu and King both testified that they began following Abella until they caught up with him. At approximately 9:42 p.m., Officer Herana responded to the same area on an assault call and arrested Abella.
During the defense’s case-in-chief, Abella took the stand, advancing a theory of self-defense. Abella testified that on July 17, 2014, at around 8:45 p.m., he was present in Chinatown near Smith and Pauahi. He testified that he was "just hanging around" with other people, and around that time, he saw an ambulance and police lights. He said that he did not go to check it out, but instead walked over to the River of Life Mission to see what food would be served. He testified that Higa came up to him and instigated the fight; per Abella, "he just hit me." After that, Abella claimed that another person jumped in the fray, and he just blocked hits until he left. He further claimed that he did not know Higa nor know why Higa would hit him.
Abella identified Higa in a photograph and acknowledged that Higa was older than him, but said, In response to the State’s questions, Abella acknowledged that he did not have time to react to the second punch, but thereafter, Abella reacted by hitting Higa, and did not stop hitting Higa until Landrio broke it up ("He jump in, too, yes.") Abella said that he and Landrio exchanged punches a Abella said that after he finished fighting with Landrio, he walked over by the Fort Street Mall and was stopped by police. On cross-examination, Abella said he thought he (Abella) has "a pretty good punch[.]"4
Ashley Hashimoto, then a paramedic-in-training, testified that at approximately 9:52 p.m., she responded to an assault call at Smith Street in Chinatown, and when she arrived, she saw Higa lying on his back, rolling around, and screaming. Higa was able to provide his name and date to the responding medical team, but could not answer any other questions and was "yelling and screaming and rolling." The responding medical team placed Higa in "full spinal mobilization," started an IV, took his vital signs, and transported him to Queen’s Medical Center.
Higa was taken to Queen’s, a trauma center, for a possible brain injury
and multiple contusions. Hashimoto testified that there are a range of symptoms that could indicate a brain injury, some of which Higa exhibited: Higa was "altered"; "very combative and agitated"; and had "significantly high" blood pressure.
At Queen’s, Higa was seen by the emergency room doctor and was sent for a CT scan
of his brain. Higa was given a sedative before undergoing the CT scan. He fell unconscious and did not regain consciousness thereafter.
Dr. Susan Steinemann, a surgeon who was qualified as an expert in trauma and general surgery, testified that she saw Higa after his CT scan
. By the time Dr. Steinemann saw Higa, he was "comatose" and In grading the degree of his coma, Dr. Steinemann explained that a score of three "would be someone that’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nago
......, 132 Hawai‘i 333, 350, 322 P.3d 228, 245 (2014) (citation omitted). "When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself." State v. Abella , 145 Hawai‘i 541, 552, 454 P.3d 482, 493 (2019) (cleaned up) (citation omitted). "Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, [a] court's sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning." Peer News LLC v. City & Cty. of Honolulu , 138 Hawai‘i 53, 60, 376 P.3d 1, 8 ......
-
State v. Moon
...produce an absurd result, we presume that result was not intended and construe the statute in accord with its underlying legislative intent." Id. (citing Haugen, Hawai'i at 77, 85 P.3d at 184). The interpretation of HRS § 327C-1 advanced by Moon here would produce absurd results. Most notab......
-
State v. Lajala
......might have infected the jury's deliberations" regarding the conduct element of Hindering Prosecution One. "In a jury trial, it is the court's responsibility to ensure that the jury is properly instructed on the law and the questions the jury is to decide." State v. Abella , 145 Hawai‘i 541, 556, 454 P.3d 482, 497 (2019) (citing Nichols , 111 Hawai‘i at 334-35, 141 P.3d at 981-82 ). The State must prove "[e]ach element of the offense" beyond a reasonable doubt. HRS § 701-114 (2014). That the defendant "rendered assistance" to another person is an element of the ......
-
State v. Angei
...... death," then by arguing that the jury should have been. instructed on causation at trial. Causation becomes an issue. if there is evidence that such a decision by a family member. or a physician may have caused the death of the decedent. See State v. Abella , 145 Hawai'i 541, 558, 454. P.3d 482, 499 (2019). In Abella , for instance, we. held that jury instructions on causation and intervening. actions were warranted in light of "evidence suggesting. that the prognosis. . 24 . . for the victim was uncertain ......