449 P.3d 1184
Haw.2019Background
- Defendant Burt Calaycay, a 28‑year‑old cadre (supervisor) at a residential Youth Challenge Academy, was charged with harassment for sexually explicit statements made to CW, a 17‑year‑old cadet, on Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, 2013.
- CW testified that Calaycay isolated her, made graphic sexual propositions (e.g., wanted to "hit you from the back," "lick you," see her naked), and that these statements made her feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and scared; she said she understood some remarks as sexual pleasure rather than threats of physical harm.
- No physical contact, threats, or camera footage were introduced; only CW and Calaycay testified at the bench trial; the district court credited CW and convicted under HRS § 711‑1106(1)(f) (offensively coarse language causing a reasonable belief of intent to cause bodily injury).
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed, holding CW’s testimony showed she did not believe Calaycay intended to hurt her, so an essential element (reasonable belief of intent to cause bodily injury) was lacking.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution there was substantial evidence (context, power differential, unsolicited repeated advances, nighttime approach at dormitory) supporting both the offensively coarse language element and that CW reasonably believed non‑consensual sexual contact (which can constitute bodily injury) might occur; it affirmed the district court and reversed the ICA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Calaycay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported element that communication used offensively coarse language | Statements were graphic, sexual, unsolicited, and objectively "offensively coarse" (e.g., "fuck me from the back," "lick you"). | Language was teenage slang or mere solicitation for consensual sex, not criminally coarse. | Held: Substantial evidence supported offensively coarse language. |
| Whether evidence showed the recipient reasonably believed defendant intended to cause bodily injury | CW’s fear, unsafe feeling, context (isolated, supervisor power, nighttime dorm approach) made belief of possible non‑consensual sexual contact reasonable. | CW testified she understood some remarks (licking) as intended to cause sexual pleasure, not harm; no threats or physical force. | Held: Substantial evidence that CW reasonably believed bodily injury (non‑consensual sexual contact) might ensue. |
| Whether defendant acted with the specific intent to harass, annoy, or alarm | Repeated unsolicited, coercive, intrusive advances after rebuff, power differential and timing support inference of intent to harass/ alarm. | Denied sexual or harassing intent; claimed benign motives and contested factual assertions. | Held: Circumstantial evidence and inferences support requisite intent. |
| Whether HRS § 711‑1106(1)(f) is vague or overbroad / violates free speech | Statute targets a narrow subset of unprotected speech (intent + offensively coarse language + reasonable‑person result), and may criminalize speech integral to facilitating a crime; reasonable‑person standard narrows scope. | Statute criminalizes protected speech (solicitations), is vague ("offensively coarse") and overbroad, chilling expression. | Held: Statute is neither facially vague nor overbroad as applied; criminalization here did not violate free speech. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bush, [citation="98 Hawai'i 459, 50 P.3d 428"] (Haw. 2002) (offensively coarse sexual remarks can satisfy harassment statute and recipient’s reasonable belief of intended bodily injury is required)
- State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 831 P.2d 924 (Haw. 1992) (appellate standard: view evidence in strongest light for prosecution; substantial evidence test)
- State v. Doe, [citation="76 Hawai'i 85, 869 P.2d 1304"] (Haw. 1994) (context and totality of circumstances govern harassment analysis; statute aimed at injurious effect on recipient)
- State v. Alangcas, [citation="134 Hawai'i 515, 345 P.3d 181"] (Haw. 2015) (limitations on First Amendment challenges; speech integral to criminal conduct unprotected)
- State v. Kiese, [citation="126 Hawai'i 494, 273 P.3d 1180"] (Haw. 2012) (intent to harass can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and repeated coercive conduct)