State v. Figueroa
| Docket Number | CAAP-22-0000058 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEKOA FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
1
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KEKOA FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant
No. CAAP-22-0000058
Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii
December 22, 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CPC-20-0000043)
William H. Jameson, Jr., Deputy Public Defender For Defendant-Appellant.
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Kekoa Figueroa (Figueroa) appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence (Judgment), filed on February 1, 2022, and amended on December 27, 2022 by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).[1] For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the circuit court's Judgment, and this case is remanded for a new trial.
In January 2020, Figueroa was charged via Felony Information, with Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle (UCPV), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-836 (2014).[2] The Felony Information alleged that,
On or about January 8, 2020, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai[']i, Kekoa Figueroa did intentionally or knowingly exert unauthorized control over a propelled vehicle, by operating the vehicle without the consent of German Dalo, owner of said vehicle, thereby committing the offense of Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle, in violation of Section 708-836 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes
Prior to trial, Figueroa filed Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress), dated June 12, 2020, requesting that the circuit court suppress and preclude from use at trial the evidence obtained by the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) during Figueroa's brief investigative detention on January 8, 2020. Figueroa contended that Officers Lyle Maiava (Officer Maiava) and Christopher Chu's (Officer Chu) "prolonged detention of Defendant for purposes other than to address a traffic infraction, to wit, failure to use turn signal, was an
illegal seizure," and that the introduction of evidence obtained during the detention thus violated his rights under Article I, Sections 5 and 7 of the Hawai'i State Constitution, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The circuit court denied Figueroa's Motion to Suppress, after hearing the motion on January 7, 2021, and entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Order) on February 19, 2021. In its Order, the circuit court made the following unchallenged findings of facts:
1. The Court finds that State's Witnesses, Officers Christopher Chu ("Officer Chu") and Lyle Maiava ("Officer Maiava") were credible
2. On January 8th, 2020, at about 5:30 pm, HPD Officer Chu and HPD Officer Maiava were on duty in the City and County of Honolulu in a high crime area.
3. While operating an unmarked vehicle on a Honolulu roadway and making checks, Officer Chu and Officer Maiava observed a male later identified as Kekoa Figueroa ("Defendant") operating a moped bearing Hawai[']i Decal "Z18009."
4. Defendant was observed by the officers turning onto Ke[']eaumoku Street without using a turn signal.
5. Officer Chu, who was seated in the passenger seat of the unmarked vehicle, observed that the moped was being operated without any keys in the ignition. Officer Maiava independently observed the same.
6. Officer Chu and Officer Maiava continued to follow the Moped, which turned into the Walmart parking lot located on Ke[']eaumoku Street. Without being pulled over by the HPD officers, the Defendant proceeded towards the entrance of Walmart and parked the moped near some soda machines.
7. Suspecting Defendant was operating the moped without authorization, Officer Chu and Officer Maiava parked their vehicle and approached Defendant on foot.
8. While Officer Chu approached and spoke to the Defendant, Officer Maiava immediately conducted checks upon the moped and verified that the moped bearing Hawai[']i Decal "Z18009" is registered to a German Dalo ("Dalo").
9. Officer Maiava contacted Dalo's phone number; Dalo related that he is still the current owner of the moped, that he does not know a Kekoa Figueroa and that he did not give Kekoa Figueroa permission to use, operate, or possess his moped.
10.Based on the phone records of Officer Chu's cell phone (that were entered into evidence as State's exhibit #4), the phone call from Officer Maiava to Dalo's phone number was initiated at 5:33 pm and lasted 6 minutes.
Based on the above-factual findings, the circuit court made the following conclusions of law:
1.The Perez test is controlling for investigative stops such as in the instant case in determining whether the stop/detention was justified. State v. Perez, 111 Hawaiʻi 392 (2006).
2.The suspicion of HPD Officer Chu and HPD Officer Maiava (before approaching Defendant) that Defendant was operating the moped without authorization was reasonable.
3.The investigative actions by the HPD officers were reasonable at their inception.
4.The time period from when HPD Officers Chu and Maiava first saw Defendant until the end of the phone call to Dalo did not last longer than was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the detention (the investigation of the possible stolen moped), and was limited in scope to that which justified the initial stop.[3]
5. The investigation for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle and any seizure of Defendant pursuant thereto, was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances, which justified the interference in the first place.
(Footnote added.)
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Figueroa raised, inter alia, a mistake-of-fact defense. Counsel for the State and Figueroa both agreed to the mistake-of-fact jury instruction set forth in the Court's Special Instruction No. 3, as modified by agreement, and the circuit court so instructed the jury. The jury reached its verdict on May 3, 2021, finding Figueroa guilty as charged of UCPV. The circuit court entered its Judgment sentencing Figueroa to four years of probation with special conditions.
Figueroa raises two points of error on appeal. He contends: (1) "[t]he trial court erroneously concluded that the police had reasonable suspicion from the inception to detain Figueroa for purposes of investigating whether the moped was
stolen"; and (2) "[t]he [deputy prosecuting attorney]'s improper remarks during his rebuttal closing argument substantially prejudiced Figueroa's right to a fair trial."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial