State v. Martins
Citation | 102 P.3d 1034,106 Haw. 136 |
Decision Date | 20 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 25021.,25021. |
Parties | STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent v. Mark Alan MARTINS, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
Court | Supreme Court of Hawai'i |
Joyce K. Matsumori-Hoshijo, deputy public defender, for defendant-appellant-petitioner Mark Alan Martins on the writ.
Arleen Y. Watanabe, deputy prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff-appellee-respondent State of Hawaii on the supplemental brief.
On November 15, 2004, the defendant-appellant-petitioner Mark Alan Martins filed an application for a writ of certiorari (AWC), requesting that we review the Intermediate Court of Appeal's (ICA's) published opinion filed on October 14, 2004 (the ICA's opinion), affirming the March 1, 2002 judgment of the circuit court of the second circuit, the Honorable Reinette W. Cooper presiding, convicting him of and sentencing him for the following offenses: (1) terroristic threatening in the second degree, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-717 (1993)1 ( ); (2) reckless endangering in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 707-714 (1993)2 ( ); (3) place to keep a loaded firearm on a public highway, in violation of HRS § 134-6(d) (Supp.2001)3 (Count III); (4)place to keep a firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-6(c) (Supp.2003) (Count IV), see supra note 3; and (5) promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (1993) (Count VI).4See State v. Martins, 106 Hawai'i 62, 101 P.3d 671 (Haw.App.2004).
In his application, Martins's sole contention is as follows: "The ICA gravely erred in holding that the [circuit] court did not plainly err in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of a `true threat' because the evidence of terroristic threatening was Martins' conduct of `discharging his shotgun' and not his `remarks.'"
On November 22, 2004, we granted certiorari in order to clarify that, pursuant to State v. Valdivia, 95 Hawai'i 465, 24 P.3d 661 (2001), and State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 862 P.2d 1063 (1993), the necessity of a jury instruction defining a "true threat" applies to all terroristic threatening prosecutions regardless of whether the charge is based exclusively upon the defendant's verbal statements, the defendant's physical conduct, or some combination of the two. See infra section III. Insofar as the circuit court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the definition of a "true threat," the ICA gravely erred in affirming the March 1, 2002 judgment of the circuit court. See HRS § 602-59(b) (1993). Accordingly, we (1) reverse the ICA's opinion as to section III.B, (2) vacate the circuit court's March 1, 2002 judgment of conviction as to the offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree, and (3) remand this case to the circuit court for retrial on that count.
A. Factual Background
As a preliminary matter, we adopt the following unchallenged factual background, as set forth in the ICA's opinion:
Martins, 106 Hawai'i at 67-68, 101 P.3d at 675-676 (brackets in original).
2. Procedural Background
The ICA also noted the following undisputed procedural background:
Martins, 106 Hawai'i at 62-66, 101 P.3d at 671-75 (footnotes omitted).
On March 28, 2002, Martins timely filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's March 1, 2002 judgment, guilty conviction, and probation sentence. The ICA summarized Martins's arguments on appeal as follows:
On appeal, Martins contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for Terroristic Threatening in the Second Degree; (2) the circuit court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the threat had to be unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific in order to fall under the prohibitions of the terroristic threatening statute; (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish that, as to the included offense of Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree, Martins' conduct recklessly placed another in danger of death or serious bodily injury; (4) the evidence was insufficient to establish that, as to the offense of Place to Keep [Loaded] Firearm [on a Public Highway], Martins possessed or carried in a vehicle a loaded firearm; (5) the evidence was insufficient to establish that, as to the offense of Place to Keep Firearm, Martins was in a place other than his place of business, residence, or sojourn; (6) the prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments in asserting that it was illegal to reside in one's car in this jurisdiction substantially prejudiced Martins' right to a fair trial; and (7) there was insufficient evidence to establish the offense of Place to Keep Firearm.
Martins, 106 Hawai'i at 66, 101 P.3d at 675.
In its opinion affirming the circuit court's judgment, the ICA reasoned and held, inter alia, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Soboroff
...required remand for new trial to ensure punishment was not based on constitutionally protected speech); State v. Martins, 106 Hawai‘i 136, 102 P.3d 1034, 1042–43 (2004) (same); Abbott v. State, 190 Md.App. 595, 989 A.2d 795, 823–26 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2010) (same); State v. Schaler, 169 Wash.2d......
-
Salas v. Parson
...when a firearm is used to induce a reasonable fear of bodily injury in the person at whomit is directed. State of Hawaii v. Martins, 102 P.3d 1034, 1042 (Haw. 2004). Here, there is no dispute that Lopes-Salas used a semi-automatic pistol to threaten Officer Parson as set forth in the Crimin......
-
State v. Duncan, No. 27767 (Haw. App. 4/17/2007)
...upon the defendant's verbal statements, the defendant's physical conduct, or some combination of the two. State V. Martins, 106 Hawai`i 136, 138, 102 P.3d 1034, 1036 (2004). In Duncan's case the circuit court did not give a "true threat" instruction to the jury. The fact that Duncan's trial......
-
In re Interest of PP
...the prosecution adduced substantial evidence that Valdivia uttered a true threat. Id.9 We also take note of State v. Martins, 106 Hawai‘i 136, 142, 102 P.3d 1034, 1040 (2004), wherein the supreme court confirmed that the "true threat" requirement applies to all terroristic threatening prose......