State v. Lajala

• Decision Date: 30 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-20-0000080,CAAP-20-0000080
• Citation: 149 Hawai‘i 186,485 P.3d 80
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malia Kaalaneo LAJALA, Defendant-Appellant, and Krystle Lynn Ferreira, and Jorge Allen Pagan-Torres, Defendants
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

149 Hawai‘i 186

485 P.3d 80

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Malia Kaalaneo LAJALA, Defendant-Appellant,andKrystle Lynn Ferreira, and Jorge Allen Pagan-Torres, Defendants

NO. CAAP-20-0000080

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

MARCH 30, 2021

On the briefs:

James Biven, Kailua Kona, for Defendant-Appellant.

Stephen L. Frye, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

GINOZA, C.J., AND WADSWORTH AND NAKASONE, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WADSWORTH, J.

Defendant-Appellant Malia Kaalaneo Lajala (Lajala ) appeals from the "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence As To ... Lajala" (Judgment ), entered on January 28, 2020, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (Circuit Court ).¹ After a jury trial, Lajala was convicted of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree (Hindering Prosecution One ), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 710-1029(1),² and Assault Against a Law Enforcement Officer in the Second Degree (AALEO Two ), in violation of HRS § 707-712.6.³

Under HRS § 710-1029(1), a person commits the offense of Hindering Prosecution One if the person "renders assistance" to another person with the required intent. See supra note 2. HRS § 710-1028 (2014) defines "renders assistance" (see infra p. 9) for purposes of HRS § 710-1029(1). Lajala raises a single point of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in instructing the jury on the charge of Hindering Prosecution One by omitting the statutory definition of "renders assistance."

We hold that the jury instruction on the charge of Hindering Prosecution One was prejudicially insufficient and erroneous for failing to define "renders assistance" for the purpose of determining the material elements, including the conduct element, of the charged offense, i.e. , that Lajala rendered assistance to another person. We therefore vacate the Judgment as to Lajala's conviction for Hindering Prosecution One and remand the case for a new trial on that charge.⁴ On remand, the Circuit Court should separately instruct the jury as to the definition of "renders assistance," consistent with the applicable provisions of HRS § 710-1028.

I. Background

On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State ) filed a seven-count Indictment against Lajala and several other defendants in Case No. 3CPC-18-00000639. Lajala was charged with the following five counts: 1) Hindering Prosecution One; 2) Attempted Murder in the First Degree, in violation of HRS §§ 702-222, 705-500(1)(b), and 707-701(1)(b) ; 3) Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver, in violation of HRS § 134-25(a) ; 4) Conspiracy to Commit Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree (Conspiracy to Commit Hindering Prosecution One ), in violation of HRS §§ 710-1029(1) and 705-520 ; and 5) Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1).

On July 30, 2019, the Circuit Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder (Severance Order ) in Case No. 3CPC-18-00000639, which severed the trial of Lajala and two other defendants from their previously consolidated trial with a fourth defendant. Pursuant to the Severance Order, on July 31, 2019, the Indictment was re-filed under Case No. 3CPC-19-00000556, creating the present case.

The trial of Lajala and her two co-defendants began on September 26, 2019. Testimony continued through the morning of October 30, 2019.⁵

On October 23, 29 and 30, 2019, the State filed supplemental requested jury instructions. The "State's Proposed Instruction No. 14" set out the elements of Hindering Prosecution One, including the conduct element that "[e]ach defendant rendered assistance to a person[,]" but did not define the phrase "rendered assistance." On October 28, 2019, Lajala filed supplemental proposed jury instructions, which requested only that Hawai‘i Pattern Jury Instruction – Criminal, also known as Hawai‘i Standard Jury Instruction Criminal (HAWJIC ), No. 14.07A, entitled "Renunciation of Conspiracy," be given to the jury. On October 30, 2019, co-defendant Jorge Allen Pagan-Torres (Pagan-Torres ) filed supplemental requested jury instructions. Pagan-Torres's supplemental requested instruction no. 5 set out the elements of Hindering Prosecution One, as well as the following definition of "renders assistance," derived from HAWJIC No. 12.13:

"Renders assistance" means:

(1) Harboring or concealing another person;

(2) Warning another person of impending discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction, except this does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another person into compliance with the law;

(3) Providing another person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction;

(4) Preventing or obstructing, by means of force, deception, or intimidation, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person; or

(5) Suppressing by an act of concealment, alteration, or destruction any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person.

This definition substantially mirrors the definition of "renders assistance" set forth in HRS § 710-1028. See infra p. 9.

On October 30 and 31, 2019, the Circuit Court and the parties settled the jury instructions. It appears that Lajala joined Pagan-Torres's request that the jury be given supplemental requested instruction no. 5, but that the Circuit Court, "over defense objection," adopted a merged and modified version of the State's proposed instructions regarding Hindering Prosecution One and Conspiracy to Commit Hindering Prosecution One.⁶ In later ruling on Lajala's motion for a new trial (see infra ), the Circuit Court stated:

On October 31, 2019, Defendant Lajala, Defendant Ferreira, and Defendant Pagan-Torres objected to the State's Proposed Instruction 14 and State's Proposed Instruction 16 proffered by the State on October 30, 2019, regarding Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree, which the Court gave as merged and modified over Defense objections.

"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Defendant ... Lajala's Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure, Filed Herein on November 18, 2019" (FOFs/COLs/Order ), Jan. 9, 2020, at 2.

On November 5, 2019, the jury instructions were read to the jury. The Circuit Court instructed the jury as follows regarding the charge of Hindering Prosecution One:

In Charge 1, the defendants are charged as principal(s) and/or accomplice(s) with Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree.

A person commits the offense of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree if, with the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, and/or punishment of another person, for murder in any degree, he/she/they intentionally renders assistance to that person.

There are three material elements of the offense of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree, each [of] which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

These material elements are:

1. (Conduct): Each defendant rendered assistance to a person;

2. (Attendant Circumstance): Each defendant rendered such assistance to that person with the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, and/or punishment of such person for murder in any degree; and

3. (Result of Conduct): Assistance was rendered to the person by each defendant; and

The Prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

4. (state of mind): Each defendant acted intentionally as to the above material elements; and

5. (date and venue): The above occurred on July 17-20, 2018 in the County and State of Hawai‘i. The exact date is not an element which is required to be proved.

The jury instructions did not define "renders assistance" or "rendered assistance."

On November 6, 2019, after jury deliberations had begun, the Circuit Court received the following question from the jury: "What's the difference Between Hindering prosecution in the first degree? and Commit hindering Prosecution in the first degree?" The Circuit Court responded: "Please refer to the jury instructions provided to you."

On November 7, 2019, the jury found Lajala guilty as charged of Hindering Prosecution One and guilty of AALEO Two, as a lesser included offense of Attempted Murder in the First Degree.

On November 18, 2019, Lajala filed a motion for a new trial. She argued that the jury instruction on the charge of Hindering Prosecution One was prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, or misleading because it "failed to provide [an] adequate definition for ‘[r]enders assistance’ as ... contained in the pattern instruction" that the defense submitted. On November 27, 2019, the State filed an opposition to Lajala's motion for a new trial.

On January 9, 2020, the Circuit Court issued the FOFs/COLs/Order denying Lajala's motion for a new trial. The FOFs/COLs/Order stated in relevant part:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

....

3. During trial, evidence was presented that Justin Waiki was being sought by law enforcement as of July 17, 2018 as a suspect for the murder of Officer Bronson Kaliloa.

4. During trial, evidence was presented that Defendant Lajala warned Justin Waiki of police locations and roadblocks in order to impede his discovery by law enforcement while they were trying to apprehend him for the crime of Murder.

5. During trial, evidence was presented that Defendant Lajala provided Justin Waiki with transportation, and gas and food money in order to impede his discovery by law enforcement while they were trying to apprehend him for the crime of Murder.

....

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

....

....

C. The Jury Instruction given was substantively correct without including the definition of renders assistance; ... because the Jury Instruction given includes as an attendant circumstance that

...