State v. Sheffield
| Decision Date | 02 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCAP-17-0000707 |
| Citation | 456 P.3d 122 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David M. SHEFFIELD, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Matthew S. Kohm, Wailuku, for petitioner
Emlyn Higa for respondent
David M. Sheffield ("Sheffield"), a stranger to the complaining witness ("CW"), allegedly followed her while she walked along a street at night, stated that he wanted to beat her up and have sex with her, pulled a loop on her backpack as she tried to cross a street at a crosswalk, and dragged her backwards about five or ten steps before she broke free. Sheffield was charged with one count of kidnapping in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 707-720(1)(d) (2014),1 a class A felony punishable with up to twenty years of imprisonment,2 and one count of third degree assault,3 a misdemeanor punishable with up to one year of imprisonment.4 At the State’s request, the third degree assault count was dismissed before trial. Sheffield was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit5 ("circuit court") and found guilty on the kidnapping count. He now appeals, and this court accepted transfer of the appeal from the ICA.
On appeal, Sheffield argues that, when kidnapping is the only count tried, the State must prove the defendant used a greater degree of "restraint" than that incidentally used to commit the underlying unprosecuted assault in the third degree offense. He also argues the jury should have been so instructed. Sheffield asserts that the act of pulling the loop on CW’s backpack and dragging her backwards five to ten steps was insufficient evidence of "restraint" to support the kidnapping conviction. He asks this court to reverse his conviction based upon insufficiency of the evidence, or, in the alternative, to vacate his conviction and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
We hold that the "restraint" required to support a kidnapping conviction under HRS § 707-720(1)(d) is indeed restraint in excess of any restraint incidental to the infliction or intended infliction of bodily injury or subjection or intended subjection of a person to a sexual offense; therefore, the circuit court plainly erred in failing to so instruct the jury. Hence, we vacate the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and sentence and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On January 25, 2016, the State charged Sheffield by indictment with Count One: kidnapping, under HRS § 707-720(1)(d), and Count Two: assault in the third degree, under HRS § 707-712(1)(a). Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to dismiss Count Two without prejudice, which the circuit court granted.
Sheffield’s conviction relies on CW’s testimony, which we summarize in the light most favorable to the prosecution. CW was a 24-year-old University of Hawai‘i Maui College student on November 16, 2015. That night, one of her classes had run long, so she left school later than usual, after 7:30 p.m. When she arrived at the bus station, it appeared empty, so she believed she missed the last bus to upcountry Maui, where she lived. She decided to walk through Kahului towards the highway to hitchhike. As she walked down Alamaha Street, she heard male voices yelling at her to "come hang out," but she kept going. She rolled a cigarette but realized she had no lighter, so she purchased a lighter at a store. As she exited the store, she heard a male voice yelling at her to stop and wait.
A stranger (later identified as Sheffield) then approached CW. She kept walking half a block before he started yelling to her again. As CW entered a crosswalk, Sheffield again ran up to her and asked for a cigarette. When CW refused, he followed her and kept asking her why she was avoiding him and stating that he wanted her to come to his house.
CW testified that she thought Sheffield was "kind of like a crazy old guy" and did not initially feel threatened by him. She testified, however, that he started becoming more aggressive with her, running in front of her and putting his arms out to block her way, all the while questioning her. Then, according to CW, the stranger told her, "I want to fuck you." He then said he "was going to knock [her] out" and put his hands up near his face before taking a swing at CW. CW stated Sheffield missed her face because he was not a skilled fighter.
As CW turned to run away, Sheffield grabbed a loop on the back of her backpack and pulled her backwards towards the bushes, again repeating "more of the fucking kind of stuff" and that "he was going to beat [her] up." CW testified that Sheffield’s voice became "low, mean, and aggressive." She struggled to break free because her backpack was strapped together in the front and she could not undo the buckle. Sheffield pulled CW back "five or maybe ten steps," and every now and then, he would yank on the backpack and "force [her] back ... another step." When he had pulled her all the way to the curb, he could not pull her any farther.
Sheffield then gave CW a very hard tug, and she spun around, causing him to lose his grip on her backpack loop. She spun around again and ran into the street to escape him. Sheffield pursued her, but both became caught among moving traffic. CW was able to run up the street towards a hardware store. Having eluded Sheffield, CW then called her boyfriend to explain what had happened and asked for a ride home.
After the evidentiary portion of the trial, the circuit court instructed the jury on kidnapping as follows:
As to the term "restrain," the circuit court instructed the jury that the term "means to restrict a person’s movement in such a manner as to interfere substantially with her liberty by means of force," adapting the instruction from Hawai‘i Pattern Jury Instructions – Criminal 9.00 (2014) to the evidence adduced at trial.6
The circuit court also instructed the jury as to sexual assault in the first and second degree, as suggested by Hawai‘i Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal 9.34 (1996).7
The court also instructed the jury that "bodily injury" means "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition." The circuit court also instructed the jury on the lesser included misdemeanor offense of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.8
The jury unanimously found Sheffield guilty as charged of kidnapping. The circuit court then sentenced Sheffield to 20 years of imprisonment.9 Sheffield timely appealed, and we accepted transfer of this case.
State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
As a general rule, jury instructions to which no objection has been made at trial will be reviewed only for plain error. An error will be deemed plain error if the substantial rights of the defendant have been affected adversely. Additionally, this court will apply the plain error standard of review to correct errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights.
State v. Henley, 136 Hawai‘i 471, 478, 363 P.3d 319, 326 (2015) (citations omitted).
In his Opening Brief, Sheffield asserts two points of error: (1) that insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction, because the restraint Sheffield used against CW was only the restraint necessary to commit the "incidental" and unprosecuted offense, assault in the third degree; and (2) that the circuit court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on assault in the third degree (the dismissed and unprosecuted charge), because the jury should have been instructed that the restraint necessary for a kidnapping conviction must be restraint in excess...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ishimine
...issue in this appeal is whether the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("circuit court")1 plainly erred2 in failing to give a " Sheffield instruction" to a jury in a kidnapping trial. In this case, the defendant was charged with kidnapping under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 707-720(d......
-
State v. Forbes
...AND WADSWORTH, J., WITH HIRAOKA, J., CONCURRING AND DISSENTING IN PARTOPINION OF THE COURT BY LEONARD, J. In State v. Sheffield, 146 Hawai‘i 49, 60, 456 P.3d 122, 133 (2020), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that a circuit court plainly erred when it failed to instruct a jury that the restrai......