State v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 24 January 2020
• Docket Number: SCWC-16-0000593
• Citation: 456 P.3d 502
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Roy CARROLL, III, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

456 P.3d 502

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.William Roy CARROLL, III, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-16-0000593

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

JANUARY 24, 2020

AS CORRECTED JANUARY 27, 2020

Keith S. Shigetomi, Honolulu, for petitioner

Ha‘aheo M. Kaho‘ohalahala, for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

This case arises from the disappearance, recovery, and repair of a bronze spear attached to the bronze King Kamehameha I statue in Hilo, Hawai‘i. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit ("circuit court"),¹ William Roy Carroll, III ("Carroll") was convicted by a jury of two counts of theft and one count of criminal property damage, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"), and now again on certiorari to this court, Carroll contends the circuit court erred by: (1) denying his challenge to two prospective jurors for cause, thereby violating his right to peremptory challenges; (2) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence; and (3) improperly penalizing him in sentencing for exercising his right to a trial. The ICA concluded Carroll's points of error lacked merit and affirmed the circuit court's judgment of conviction and sentence. See State v. Carroll, No. CAAP-16-0000593, 2018 WL 5725276, at 12 (App. Oct. 31, 2018) (SDO).

We hold the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Carroll's challenge for cause of Juror 48, which required him to exercise one of his peremptory challenges to excuse that juror and caused him to exhaust his peremptory challenges, thus impairing his right to exercise a peremptory challenge on a different juror. This error requires his conviction be vacated and the case be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.

We also hold, however, that because there was substantial evidence to support Carroll's convictions for the theft and criminal property damage offenses, double jeopardy principles do not preclude a retrial.

Based on our rulings on the first two questions on certiorari, we need not address Carroll's third question on certiorari regarding sentencing.²

We therefore vacate the ICA's November 27, 2018 judgment on appeal and the circuit court's July 26, 2016 judgment of conviction and sentence, and we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Factual background

On September 6, 2015, the top half of the spear that was a part of the King Kamehameha I statue located off of Kamehameha Avenue and Bishop Street in Hilo, Hawai‘i, was observed missing. The spear, although a part of the statue, was no longer physically attached to it. On September 8, 2015, during a police investigation of the scene, the missing top portion of the spear, wrapped in a torn half of a long-sleeved orange T-shirt and a thick chain attached to a pole, was located in the bushes off a trail near the statue.

B. Circuit court proceedings

1. Charges

On September 15, 2015, Carroll was charged via a felony information and non-felony complaint with three offenses: (1) Count 1, theft in the second degree, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 708-830(1) (2014) and HRS § 708-831(1)(b) (2014), for obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over a bronze spear valued at over $300 belonging to the Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association ("KSAA");³ (2) Count 2, criminal property damage in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-821(1)(b) (2014), for causing damage exceeding $1,500 to the King Kamehameha I statue, also belonging to the KSAA;⁴ and (3) Count 3, theft in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 708-830(1) and HRS § 708-832(1)(a) (2014) for obtaining or exerting unauthorized control of a four-foot pipe and forty-foot chain valued at over $100 belonging to Bayfront Motors Incorporated ("Bayfront Motors").⁵

2. Pre-trial hearing regarding State's plea offer

At a May 4, 2016 hearing regarding other matters, the circuit court indicated it would be conducting what it called a "Frye hearing." The circuit court was apparently referring to Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), in which the United States Supreme Court held that, "as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused." Frye, 566 U.S. at 145, 132 S.Ct. 1399.⁶ The State indicated it was offering to agree to a sentence of probation and also that any jail term would be equal to time served in exchange for Carroll's guilty or no contest plea as to Count 3 and either Count 1 or Count 2. The State also agreed to take no position if Carroll requested a deferral. The circuit court made clear that if Carroll accepted the plea offer, it would sentence Carroll to probation stating, "[a]s I see it, the real big plus is that you would be avoiding any exposure to prison." Carroll declined the plea offer as supplemented to by the court and proceeded to trial.

3. Jury selection

Jury selection began on May 9, 2016. After the circuit court read the charges against Carroll during voir dire, it asked the jurors whether they⁷ had any knowledge or information about the case from any source, including any media, friends, or any other sources. Several prospective jurors indicated they had heard of the case through other sources.

Juror number 48 ("Juror 48")⁸ responded she had been exposed to information regarding the case from the Hawaii Tribune-Herald newspaper. She also stated she had heard comments made by her daughter and son-in-law and her three grandchildren who attended a Hawaiian language immersion school "who were impacted by" the case, and that she "may have heard something from" "another child who's a Hawaiian activist." She could not recall who said what. She stated her recollection regarding what she might have read was "[a]bout where the items were found" and "the condition of what -- where they found him."

She indicated she was raising the issue because she "just wanted everyone to know that I have the newspaper reports and I may have heard something somewhere along the line. What, I couldn't be specific just because my children are very involved in Hawaiian activities and the statue is important to them." Juror 48 explained that she recalled reading where the items were found, but that she could not discern "what else was added ... by [her] children" who were "very upset that the statue was desecrated," "[t]hat things were missing," "[t]hat what was done to the statue was not appropriate," and that "[s]omething should be done."

The circuit court stated that "[not] too many people would disagree with those sentiments," and asked:

THE COURT: Despite what you, um, may have, uh, read about and you might have had some reactions, uh, from your own family about, uh, this incident do you think you can set that aside and in essence and, um, presume Mr. Carroll, the defendant, here to be innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence in this case?

[JUROR 48]: I would certainly do my best to do that. However, I do come from a, um, my husband and others were very much, uh, of the opinion that if it does get to court there's a lot of -- got to be a lot of proof somewhere. That that's the way it is.

(Emphasis added.)

Juror 48 went on to state that she "would definitely try [her] best" to find Carroll not guilty if the State did not produce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. But, after further colloquy with the circuit court, Juror 48 confirmed she "presum[ed] [Carroll] guilty until he [could] prove his innocence" with "pretty good evidence":

THE COURT: Okay. If you made a conscientious effort to do that what would be your confidence level or your -- your, um, evaluation of your abilities to do that successfully?

[JUROR 48]: If, uh, the evidence points that he was not the one then I would be able to say that, um, I would be able to overcome but I've -- I've heard --

THE COURT: Okay.

[JUROR 48]: -- but again it would have to be pretty good evidence.

THE COURT: Okay. But, okay, in essence what you just told me is you're presuming that the evidence -- you're presuming him guilty until he can prove his innocence. You understand?

[JUROR 48]: I understand, but I'm -- I'm saying --

THE COURT: But that's what you're --

[JUROR 48]: -- yes.

THE COURT: -- that's what your orientation is right now?

[JUROR 48]: Right now.

(Emphases added.) Juror 48 then stated, however, that if she were selected to sit on the jury, she would be able to put aside the feelings of her family members about the incident when making her decision because she would follow the circuit court's instructions. She also stated:

So I really I would try to go by evidence. I've watched a lot of, uh, my husband very much loved all the court cases he could possibly watch. Well, he was bedridden and, uh, so I've seen a lot of those things which I know are not true, but I know sometimes thing do not come out the way it sounds like from the first.

Questioning by the circuit court of Juror 48 continued as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. [Juror 48], you know, I need to clarify certain things because I'm getting some very conflicting answers from you, and maybe it's because you're a little nervous and because you may not be understanding some of the questions so let me try again here.

First of all whatever it is, you know, in terms of any kind of bias or feelings or -- or, uh, whatever you may have with respect, um, to, uh, what happened in this case about the statue, your -- your kids' reaction to it and everything, you know, I can't unring the bill [sic].

And we're all human. We're gonna have biases and prejudice we pick up throughout our entire lives. Uh, I have my own but, uh, and I'm sure the prosecutors have their own.

But when you become a juror and/or you

...