State v. Abion, SCWC-18-0000600

• Court: Supreme Court of Hawai'i
• Citation: 478 P.3d 270
• Docket Number: SCWC-18-0000600
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramoncito D. ABION, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 29 December 2020

478 P.3d 270

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ramoncito D. ABION, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-18-0000600

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

DECEMBER 29, 2020

Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Wailuku, for Abion

Gerald K. Enriques, for the State

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND WILSON, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CASTAGNETTI, IN PLACE OF POLLACK, J., RECUSED

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

We address whether a defendant whose substance use results in permanent psychosis is prohibited by the self-induced intoxication exception from presenting evidence relevant to the lack of penal responsibility defense.

478 P.3d 272

The issue arises from the jury conviction of Ramoncito Abion ("Abion") on one count of assault in the second degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 707-711 (2014) ("assault second")¹ in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("circuit court"). On January 11, 2016, Temehane Visaya ("Visaya"), an employee at the Waiehu Shell gas station, was cleaning an oil spill when she saw Abion lying on the sidewalk and talking to himself. Visaya asked Abion to leave. She then walked to an alley next to the store, and Abion hit her on the back of the head with a hammer. Maui Police Department ("MPD") officer Charles Taua ("Officer Taua") responded. Officer Taua stopped Abion about a quarter of a mile away and explained that a man matching his description had been seen striking Visaya with a hammer. Abion said that he had done it and that the hammer was in his backpack. Officer Taua noted that Abion displayed "bizarre behavior," that he heard voices and saw visions, and was "unusually suspicious." Officer Taua did not indicate that Abion appeared intoxicated.

After Abion was arrested and charged with assault second, a panel of three medical examiners deemed Abion fit for trial. One of the examiners, Dr. Martin Blinder ("Dr. Blinder"), however, opined that Abion suffered from amphetamine psychosis and may be entitled to a lack of penal responsibility defense.

Before trial, the State filed a motion for a finding of inadmissibility of the HRS § 704-400 (2014)² defense ("motion for inadmissibility"), seeking to preclude Dr. Blinder from testifying at trial. The State argued that self-induced intoxication precluded a lack of penal responsibility defense and that Dr. Blinder's testimony was therefore irrelevant. The circuit court precluded Dr. Blinder from testifying on the grounds that State v. Young, 93 Hawai‘i 224, 999 P.2d 230 (2000), had determined a drug-induced mental illness was self-induced intoxication prohibited as a defense by HRS § 702-230(1) (Supp. 2015).³

478 P.3d 273

Abion was convicted of assault second and the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") affirmed. Abion's application for writ of certiorari ("Application") raises the following question:

Did the Intermediate Court of Appeals gravely err by tolerating the trial court's exclusion of Mr. Abion's only witness, violating his Due Process right to present evidence in support of his defense, and undermining the jury's exclusive task to resolve ultimate issues of fact?

A defendant in a criminal case has the right to be accorded "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." State v. Matafeo, 71 Haw. 183, 185, 787 P.2d 671, 672 (1990) (citation omitted). "Thus, ‘a defendant has the constitutional right to present any and all competent evidence in [their] defense.’ " State v. Acker, 133 Hawai‘i 253, 301, 327 P.3d 931, 979 (2014) (citation omitted). "[W]here the accused asserts a defense sanctioned by law to justify or to excuse the criminal conduct charged, and there is some credible evidence to support it, the issue is one of fact that must be submitted to the jury," and it is reversible error for the court to "reject evidence which, if admitted, would present an essential factual issue for the trier of fact." State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252, 255, 566 P.2d 1378, 1380-81 (1977).

Abion essentially asserts there was "competent evidence" presenting an "essential factual issue" regarding "a defense sanctioned by law ... to excuse [his] criminal conduct." 58 Haw. at 255, 566 P.2d at 1380. The circuit court and ICA ruled, however, that under the circumstances of this case, there was no such defense based on HRS § 702-230(1), which provides that "[s]elf-induced intoxication is prohibited as a defense to any offense[.]" They so ruled based on their interpretation of this court's decision in Young, 93 Hawai‘i 224, 999 P.2d 230.

As explained below, however, Young did not consider or decide whether HRS § 702-230(1) prohibits a defendant from presenting evidence of a permanent mental illness caused by substance use as relevant to a HRS § 704-400 lack of penal responsibility defense. We now hold that, based on the language and legislative history of HRS § 702-230, the self-induced intoxication exception of HRS § 702-230(1) applies only when a defendant is under the temporary influence of voluntarily ingested substances at the time of an act.

Hence, Dr. Blinder would have presented "competent evidence" on an "essential factual issue" regarding "a defense sanctioned by law ... to excuse [Abion's] criminal conduct." Thus, the circuit court "reject[ed] evidence which, if admitted, would [have] present[ed] an essential factual issue for the trier of fact" and violated Abion's due process right to present a complete defense by precluding Dr. Blinder from testifying at trial. Horn, 58 Haw. at 255, 566 P.2d at 1381.

We therefore vacate the ICA's April 14, 2020 judgment on appeal, which affirmed the circuit court's June 13, 2018 judgment of conviction and sentence and July 26, 2018 stipulation and order to amend judgment of conviction, and we remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Circuit court proceedings

On January 13, 2016, Abion was charged with assault second in violation of HRS § 707-711(1)(a) and/or (b) and/or (d).⁴

1. Abion's motion for HRS § 704-404 examination

On March 8, 2016, Abion filed a motion for a HRS § 704-404⁵ examination to determine whether he was fit to proceed and whether he was suffering from a physical or mental disease, defect, or disorder at the time of the alleged offense. Three medical examiners concluded that Abion was fit to stand trial. Two of the examiners determined that Abion's cognitive and volitional capacities were "not substantially impaired because of a major mental illness."

478 P.3d 274

One examiner, Dr. Blinder, diagnosed Abion with "[m]ethamphetamine psychosis," and noted that "protracted use of methamphetamines causes permanent brain damage at a cellular level, its effects apparent long after an individual has been free of the drug." Dr. Blinder's report also noted Abion "was not using methamphetamines on the day of his offense or several days preceding," but that "[a]bsent his paranoid psychosis Mr. Abion would never have attacked a woman with whom he had no quarrel, and absent past use of methamphetamines he would never have had an amphetamine psychosis [.]" Dr. Blinder opined that Abion may be entitled to a mental defense because his "commerce with reality was hugely impaired at the time of his assaultive conduct[.]"

2. State's motion for inadmissibility of HRS § 704-400 defense

On September 22, 2017, the State filed a motion for inadmissibility of HRS § 704-400 defense, asking the circuit court to hold that Abion "may not elicit testimony from Dr. Blinder regarding a ‘704’ defense." The State expected Dr. Blinder to testify that Abion's conduct was the result of methamphetamine psychosis, and it argued that "[i]ntoxication does not, in itself, constitute a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect," citing HRS § 702-230. Therefore, the State contended that the circuit court should find Dr. Blinder's testimony irrelevant pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence ("HRE") Rule 104 (1984).⁶

On October 6, 2017, an evidentiary hearing was held on the State's motion for inadmissibility.⁷ The State called Dr. Blinder as a witness, who testified as follows.

Dr. Blinder had diagnosed Abion with methamphetamine psychosis. Methamphetamine is capable of "caus[ing] structural changes in the brain" "powerful enough to render somebody periodically psychotic." "[T]hese changes in the brain are permanent long after [a person has] given up methamphetamines," and the person may "continue to have paranoid thoughts ... [and] be susceptible to auditory hallucinations." However, not everyone experiences these effects from long-term methamphetamine use. Dr. Blinder explained that methamphetamine use may also cause people with a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia to develop symptoms that would not otherwise have manifested:

A. So -- so let's say you have a genetic endowment of some sort of the genes that contribute to the outbreak of schizophrenia, you don't have nine or ten, you just have three or four, you can probably sail through life and never exhibit any psychotic symptoms. You're okay. But if you use

...