State v. Barrios., 389 P.3d 916

Background

Defendant William E. Barrios was indicted on 200 felony counts for sexual assaults and related offenses against two minors (MD and MS); trial resulted in convictions on 146 counts all relating to MD (72 A felonies, 72 C felonies, 2 kidnappings).
The jury trial occurred in October–November 2012; the defense rested without presenting witnesses and Barrios maintained innocence and planned to appeal.
At sentencing the State sought consecutive terms; the PSI addendum included victim and family letters; the court allowed MD to speak and permitted MD’s grandmother and MS’s letter to be read aloud.
The circuit court called Barrios a “monster,” emphasized the heinousness of the crimes, referenced lack of remorse, and imposed consecutive terms totaling 100 years’ imprisonment.
The ICA affirmed conviction and sentence; Barrios sought certiorari to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court challenging (1) prosecutorial closing remark, (2) allowance of non-victim statements at sentencing, and (3) the 100-year consecutive sentence.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed convictions, held the prosecutor’s jury-appeal remark improper but harmless, upheld the court’s allowance of letters at sentencing, but vacated the 100-year sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s closing remark ("When a child needs justice, they come before a jury")	State: remark was a proper appeal to render justice based on evidence.	Barrios: remark improperly appealed to jurors’ abstract sense of justice and emotion, diverting them from the evidence.	Remark was improper (emotional appeal) but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the court’s instruction and strong evidence.
Admission/readal of non-victim family letters at sentencing	State: letters were part of PSI addendum and relevant to sentencing impact; court may consider victim-family input.	Barrios: letters (esp. MS’s, where acquitted) improperly introduced and risked punishment for acquitted or non-adjudicated conduct.	Court did not abuse discretion: PSI addendum procedures were followed, family input is permissible; record shows sentencing court focused on convictions relating to MD, not acquitted charges.
Whether sentence should be limited by continuous-sexual-assault statute (single-count alternative)	Barrios: State could have charged a single continuous-sexual-assault count (max 20 years) so 100 years is disproportionate.	State: statute is an alternative for cases lacking specificity; when individual counts are proved, multiple convictions and sentences are permissible.	Court: statute does not bar separate convictions/sentences; sentencing by count was permissible.
Consecutive sentences totaling 100 years; consideration of silence/appeal	Barrios: court failed to articulate reasons for each consecutive term and punished him for refusing to admit guilt (advisable because he intended to appeal).	State: court addressed statutory sentencing factors and justified consecutive terms by severity, deterrence, risk to public.	Vacated sentence: circuit court did not adequately explain rationale for each consecutive term and appeared to use defendant’s silence/refusal to admit guilt as aggravating factor; remand for resentencing before a different judge.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mainaaupo, [citation="117 Hawai'i 235"] (discusses harmless-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Tuua, [citation="125 Hawai'i 10"] (framework for evaluating improper closing arguments and harmlessness)
State v. Clark, [citation="83 Hawai'i 289"] (scope of prosecutor's permissible inferences in closing)
State v. Kamana'o, [citation="103 Hawai'i 315"] (prohibits enhanced sentencing based on defendant's refusal to admit guilt when appealing)
State v. Kong, [citation="131 Hawai'i 94"] (requirements for stating reasons for consecutive sentences under HRS §706‑606)
State v. Hussein, [citation="122 Hawai'i 494"] (explains dual purposes for stating on-record reasons for consecutive sentences)
State v. Mikasa, [citation="111 Hawai'i 1"] (error when sentencing court cites uncharged conduct as aggravating)
State v. Klinge, [citation="92 Hawai'i 577"] (context for harmlessness of prosecutor's remarks)
State v. Marsh, 68 Haw. 659 (example of prosecutorial comment leading to reversal)