State Of Haw.‘i v. Stenger, No. 27511.
| Court | Supreme Court of Hawai'i |
| Writing for the Court | Opinion of the Court by ACOBA, J |
| Citation | 122 Hawai'i 271,226 P.3d 441 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 27511. |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appelleev.Angela STENGER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
122 Hawai'i 271
226 P.3d 441
STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Angela STENGER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
No. 27511.
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.
March 4, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lawrence A. Goya, Deputy Attorney General for respondent/plaintiff-appellee.
ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ., and Circuit Judge KIM assigned due to a vacancy; with substitute Justice KIM concurring separately; and MOON, C.J., Dissenting; and NAKAYAMA, J., dissenting, with whom MOON, C.J., Joins.
Opinion of the Court by ACOBA, J.
We hold that (1) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Angela Stenger (Petitioner) was entitled to a mistake of fact instruction under Hawai‘'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 702-218 (1993) 1; (2) based on that holding, it would be inappropriate for the circuit court of the first circuit (the court) 2 to also give a claim of right instruction pursuant to HRS § 708-834(1) (Supp.2002) 3; (3) under the circumstances of this case, first-degree theft by deception under HRS §§ 708-830(2) and 708-830.5(1)(a) (1993) 4 is a continuing offense
This is the second application for writ of certiorari in this case. In the first application, Respondent 9 asked this court to review the ICA's January 30, 2009 judgment, on the ground that the ICA gravely erred in ruling that Petitioner was entitled to the claim-of-right defense instruction where she did not have sufficient interest in the welfare benefits. By a 3-2 vote this court rejected the application. See State v. Stenger, No. 27511, 2009 WL 2171562 (Haw. April 23, 2009) (Acoba, J., dissenting separately, and Kim, J., dissenting separately).
In the second application for writ of certiorari, filed by Petitioner on April 30, 2009 (Application), Petitioner seeks review of the ICA's judgment and SDO, on the basis that the ICA gravely erred in holding (1) “that the [court] did not err in refusing to give a specific unanimity instruction[,]” and (2) “that [Petitioner] was not entitled to a mistake of fact jury instruction.”
In June 2002, Petitioner, due to a high-risk pregnancy, ceased her work as a substitute teacher with the Department of Education (DOE), and also for the Hawai‘i Surf Academy (HSA), a business owned and operated by Petitioner. Petitioner thereafter applied for financial aid, medical coverage, and food stamps (public assistance), from the Department of Human Services (DHS). At the time she applied for aid, Petitioner had two children, Kaelin Himphill (Kaelin) and Keana Himphill (Keana).
On June 21, 2002, Terri Cambra (Cambra), an eligibility supervisor for DHS, interviewed Petitioner, and reviewed her applications to determine whether she was eligible for public
Upon meeting with Petitioner, Cambra went over the responsibilities and penalties associated with receiving public assistance, which are listed on the application, including the penalties for providing false information, and the requirement that all changes be reported within ten days. Petitioner signed a statement on the application stating that her answers were true and correct, and that she understood the penalties for giving false information. At that time, Petitioner did not qualify for public assistance, because she exceeded the income limit.
On July 2, 2002, Petitioner reapplied for public assistance, and was found to be eligible.
On August 22, 2002, Petitioner gave birth to twins, Jadelyn and Jolene Stenger (the twins). In October of 2002, two sisters, Pearlinda Aea (Aea) and Sheila Ann Geiger (Geiger) [collectively, the sisters], began assisting Petitioner with the twins' care. According to Petitioner, the sisters cared for the twins a couple of days a week between October 2002 and May 2003. According to Aea, she cared for Jolene 16 days or more per month. According to Geiger, she cared for Jadelyn three to four days per week in October 2002, which escalated thereafter. Geiger claimed that after December 2002, Jadelyn did not stay overnight with Petitioner. The sisters were not paid for this service. On December 16, 2002, Petitioner informed her DHS public assistance case worker Lyn Cardenas (Cardenas) in writing that the sisters were watching the twins two to three days per week, and that Petitioner's mother occasionally watched Kaelin and Keana.
In January 2003, Petitioner sent Kaelin and Keana to live with their father in Oregon, and transferred custody of both children over to him. However, Petitioner claimed that she intended the arrangement to be only temporary. In January, Petitioner reported that Kaelin had moved out, but waited until April to report that Keana had moved out, because she had believed that Keana was to return in a few weeks.
In March 2003, Petitioner made efforts to return to work, and wrote a letter to Cardenas informing her that she started working, as she intended to begin substitute teaching. However, Petitioner had a difficult time finding child care, and, although she worked intermittently, she did not report the income because it was not “regular.” Petitioner and Respondent stipulated that Petitioner received the following unreported wages as a substitute teacher during the time she was receiving public assistance:
-------------------
| |October 18, 2002:|$232.62|
|---------------|-----------------|-------|
|March 20, 2003:|$359.40 | |
|---------------|-----------------|-------|
|April 4, 2003: |$599.00 | |
|---------------|-----------------|-------|
|April 17, 2003:|$119.80 | |
|---------------|-----------------|-------|
|May 5, 2003: |$119.80 | |
|---------------|-----------------|-------|
|May 20, 2003: |$239.60 | |
-------------------
In 2003, Petitioner's grandfather passed away, leaving Petitioner a check for $5,000, which Petitioner gave to her mother. Petitioner's mother placed a portion of the money in a trust account at Bank of Hawaii, which, upon her death, would go to Petitioner. Scott Takahashi (Takahashi), custodian of records for Bank of Hawaii, testified that a $5000 check payable to Petitioner was deposited into three different accounts, for which Petitioner was either the signatory or the beneficiary. According to Petitioner, she divided the $5000 into three accounts, depositing $1000 into the HSA account, $500 into her personal account, and $3,500 into the trust account. Petitioner never reported the $5000 to DHS.
Takahashi further testified that Petitioner opened a checking account for her business, HSA, on July 25, 2000, for which Petitioner was the sole authorized signer. The HSA account's July 2002 statement showed an opening balance of $3,090.21 and a closing balance of $191.48. Activity for July included a check payable to Petitioner for $285 from the State of Hawai‘i Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) and a money order for $200 also payable to Petitioner. Takahashi further testified that in September 2002, there were credit card deposits to that account for $2,532.63, and $1,950.00. There
In May 2003, Petitioner informed Cardenas that she wanted to be removed from public assistance because she had started working more frequently and the twins were staying with the sisters full time.
A DHS Welfare Fraud Investigator, Terrence Miyasato (Miyasato), investigated Petitioner based on anonymous tips. Miyasato conducted interviews and obtained information about the HSA. Nina Vallejo (Vallejo), an eligibility worker with the State's Investigation Office, worked with Miyasato on Petitioner's case to determine the amount of overpayment. Vallejo determined that Petitioner's (1) income and assets from the HSA, (2) income from DOE, and (3) failure to report that her children were not living with her, disqualified Petitioner from receiving public assistance, and evaluated separately how each of those factors related to the financial, food stamp, and medical assistance that Petitioner received between July 2002 and May 2003. Vallejo considers household size, monthly income, financial resources, and income guidelines when determining whether an individual is eligible for public assistance. She testified that without the children in the house, Petitioner was not eligible for any financial assistance on their behalf, but Petitioner could still receive assistance if she qualified in her own right. Vallejo based her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adviento, No. SCWC–30171.
...is, should be brought to the attention of the jury because it is the jury that finds the facts. State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 226 P.3d 441 (2010)."[T]he principle underlying Stenger, and [State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai‘i 195, 58 P.3d 1242 (2002),] is that it would be wrong to uphold a de......
-
State v. Schnabel, No. SCWC–29390.
...by this court").It is well-established that a court's error can be noticed for plain error. see State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 282, 226 P.3d 441, 452 (2010) (noting that "the court's failure to instruct" was reviewed under the plain error standard of review, which, in the case of errone......
-
State v. Taylor, No. SCWC–30161.
...J.130 Hawai'i 197 I. Introduction The State asks us in this appeal to overrule the plurality opinion in State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 226 P.3d 441 (2010). Despite the apparent confusion regarding its actual holding, Stenger does not stand for the proposition for which it is sometimes c......
-
State v. Smith, No. 33542.
...form of pre-existing ownership or possession of (2) specific property.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 285, 226 P.3d 441 (2010). “[S]elf-help by a person who claims that the victim of his or her taking owes that person money, and who intends to hold the debtor's ......
-
State v. Adviento, No. SCWC–30171.
...is, should be brought to the attention of the jury because it is the jury that finds the facts. State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 226 P.3d 441 (2010)."[T]he principle underlying Stenger, and [State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai‘i 195, 58 P.3d 1242 (2002),] is that it would be wrong to uphold......
-
State v. Schnabel, No. SCWC–29390.
...this court").It is well-established that a court's error can be noticed for plain error. see State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 282, 226 P.3d 441, 452 (2010) (noting that "the court's failure to instruct" was reviewed under the plain error standard of review, which, in the ca......
-
State v. Taylor, No. SCWC–30161.
...J.130 Hawai'i 197 I. Introduction The State asks us in this appeal to overrule the plurality opinion in State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 226 P.3d 441 (2010). Despite the apparent confusion regarding its actual holding, Stenger does not stand for the proposition for which it is sometimes c......
-
State v. Smith, No. 33542.
...form of pre-existing ownership or possession of (2) specific property.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai‘i 271, 285, 226 P.3d 441 (2010). “[S]elf-help by a person who claims that the victim of his or her taking owes that person money, and who intends to hold the debtor's ......