State v. Bringas

• Citation: 149 Hawai‘i 435,494 P.3d 1168
• Decision Date: 31 August 2021
• Docket Number: SCWC-17-0000543
• Court: Supreme Court of Hawai'i
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian-John C. BRINGAS, also known as Adrianjohn Bringas, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

149 Hawai‘i 435

494 P.3d 1168

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

v.Adrian-John C. BRINGAS, also known as Adrianjohn Bringas, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-17-0000543

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

[AUGUST 31, 2021]

Phyllis J. Hironaka, for petitioner

Sonja P. McCullen, Honolulu, for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, J., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CHANG, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY, WITH McKENNA AND WILSON, JJ., EACH DISSENTING SEPARATELY

OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Adrian-John C. Bringas was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of W, a minor. In its jury instructions, the circuit court¹ properly instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder, including third-degree assault. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-712 (2014), the statute defining third-degree assault, provides that the offense may be reduced to a petty misdemeanor if the fight or scuffle is the result of "mutual affray."² Consistent with the statute and Hawai‘i Jury Instructions Criminal (HAWJIC) 9.21A, the circuit court submitted a special interrogatory to the jury on mutual affray. The interrogatory stated: "Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent?" The court instructed the jury that it must answer the special interrogatory only if it found Bringas guilty of the included offense of third-degree assault. The jury found Bringas guilty as charged of second-degree murder, yet answered the special interrogatory by placing an X on the line next to "no."

Bringas argues that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial because the jury's inconsistent verdict mandated vacatur. We disagree. There is a reasonable way to reconcile the jury verdict. The evidence in this case could have reasonably caused the jury to conclude that the altercation leading to the decedent's death began as mutual affray but ended in second-degree murder. Thus, the jury's answer to the mutual affray special interrogatory is reconcilable with its verdict that Bringas was guilty of second-degree murder. We thus affirm Bringas's conviction.

II. BACKGROUND

Bringas was charged by indictment with one count of murder in the second degree (Count I), in violation of HRS § 707-701.5,³ and one count of assault in the second degree (Count II), in violation of HRS § 707-711(1)(a), (b), and/or (d).⁴ As to the first count, the State alleged that Bringas intentionally or knowingly caused the death of W, a minor. As to the second count, the State alleged that Bringas intentionally or knowingly caused substantial injury to, recklessly caused substantial bodily injury to, and/or intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury with a dangerous instrument to C.U., the older brother of W.

The following evidence was adduced at Bringas's jury trial in February 2017. It was undisputed that after an altercation on the night of April 12, 2016, Bringas stabbed W in the chest, resulting in W's death, and stabbed C.U. in the leg. The State alleged that Bringas was the aggressor, while the defense argued Bringas acted in self-defense.

Bringas testified that while riding his bike in Kalihi, the chain of his bike fell off near Ahonui Street, so he stopped to fix it using a fixed blade knife he was carrying in his backpack. After fixing his bike, W approached Bringas and offered him marijuana. The two had not previously met, and Bringas testified that the mood was "dark," and Bringas felt W was "check[ing] him" by asking him questions. Then, Eileen Prescott, a family friend of W, approached Bringas and W and began smoking with W, which Bringas testified "lightened the situation[.]"

Competing accounts of what happened next were adduced at trial. Bringas testified that he began to gather up the trash from his bag, and while doing so W and Prescott walked away. After walking over to a dumpster to deposit the trash, Bringas testified that he was hit hard from behind and fell to the ground. Bringas was unsure what had hit him and caused him to fall to the ground, but he was able to get back on his feet and ran away. However, he slipped and rolled his right ankle, causing him to fall again. While on the ground, an unidentified individual began punching and kicking Bringas. Bringas testified that he was able to get the person off of him and begin running again, but he was met on the street by two male individuals who attacked him. At this point, Bringas grabbed the knife out of his waistband.⁵ He shouted at the two men to "stop, get back," and noticed that Prescott had his backpack in her hand and his belongings were on the ground. Bringas recalled yelling at the two men and Prescott that they could have his belongings, "just let me go." He was then hit by an object one of the men was holding and fell to the ground again. While lying face down on the floor, Bringas "fe[lt] a presence on top" of him, again hitting and kicking him. Bringas recalled flailing his right hand – which held the knife – around his head in an effort to protect himself. After, "the attack just stop[ped]," and he ran away again. He ran as fast as he could down three more streets, jumping into the bed of a truck that pulled into a gas station.

Prescott testified that she saw Bringas and W talking behind the trash can, and when she turned away to talk to her boyfriend, R.K., she overhead Bringas ask W if he wanted to "buy a dime," but W stated he didn't have any money. Soon after, she noticed Bringas and W shoving one another. According to Prescott, she saw Bringas grab a shiny object from his backpack before chasing W and stabbing him. Bringas began to walk back toward the dumpster when Prescott pointed Bringas out to R.K., who tackled Bringas and the two began to fight. R.K. testified the two stopped fighting when R.K. realized Bringas had a "shining object in his hand[.]" While R.K. retreated, Bringas ran in the opposite direction. R.K. saw C.U. and pointed Bringas out to C.U., and the two began to fight. R.K. testified that C.U. hit Bringas with an unidentified object, causing Bringas to fall to the ground, but C.U. testified that he could not remember whether he had used an object to strike Bringas. Shortly after C.U. and Bringas began fighting, C.U. felt blood rushing from a slit in his shorts; he realized he had been stabbed and ran away from Bringas. C.U. was unsure whether Bringas was following him. R.K. testified that he and another friend followed Bringas, but could not catch him. They retreated after Bringas exited the Kuhio Park Terrace area.

Following the close of evidence, the court instructed the jury as to the elements of murder in the second degree, stating that "if and only if you find the defendant not guilty of Murder in the Second Degree, or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict ... then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty" of the lesser included offenses: manslaughter, followed by assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree. The jury was further instructed that, if assault in the third degree was proven, it was to "consider whether the fight or scuffle was entered in to by mutual consent[.]"

The court then read the mutual consent interrogatory to the jury as follows:

In Count [I] of the indictment, if you find that the prosecution has proven the offense of Assault in the Third Degree beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must also consider whether the fight or scuffle was entered into by mutual consent, whether expressly or by conduct.

You must determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent. This determination must be unanimous and is to be indicated by answering "yes" or "no" on a special interrogatory that will be provided to you.

The verdict form for the first count consisted of six options: not guilty, guilty of murder in the second degree, guilty of manslaughter, guilty of assault in the first degree, guilty of assault in the second degree, and guilty of assault in the third degree. It also included the special interrogatory about mutual affray. The jury returned the verdict form marked as follows:

As to Count I:

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant not guilty.

_ X _ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty as charged of the offense of Murder in the Second Degree.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty of the included offense of Manslaughter.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty of the included offense of Assault in the First Degree.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty of the included offense of Assault in the Second Degree.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty of the included offense of Assault in the Third Degree.

SPECIAL INTEROGATORY

Question:

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent? (Your answer to this question must be unanimous.)

Answer:

Yes ___ No _ X _

As to Count II, which is not at issue here, the jury also answered the special interrogatory, marking "X" on the line next to "yes" even though it had not found Bringas guilty of assault in the third degree. The verdict form was returned as follows:

As to Count II:

_ X _ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant not guilty.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty as charged of the offense of Assault in the Second Degree.

___ WE THE JURY in this case, find the Defendant guilty of the included offense of Assault in the Third Degree.

SPECIAL INTEROGATORY

Question:

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent? (Your answer to this question must be unanimous.)

Answer:

Yes _ X _ No ___

The clerk read the jury verdict forms for each count without any reference to the jury's...