State v. Deedy., SCAP-15-0000440

Background

In November 2011 Christopher Deedy shot and killed Kollin Elderts; he was indicted for second-degree murder and a felony firearm count.
First trial (2013): court refused to instruct on lesser included offenses (e.g., reckless manslaughter, assaults); jury deadlocked and mistrial declared on all counts.
Second trial (2014): court instructed on reckless manslaughter and assault; jury acquitted Deedy of second-degree murder, but deadlocked on the included offenses and the firearm count—court entered not guilty on murder and declared mistrial as to the hung counts.
Deedy moved to dismiss with prejudice invoking double jeopardy (state and federal), Hawai‘i statutes (HRS §§701-109–111), Moriwake (dismissal after hung juries), collateral estoppel, and Supremacy Clause (federal-officer immunity).
The circuit court denied dismissal; Deedy sought and obtained interlocutory appeal; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirms the denials and remands for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Deedy)	Held
Whether retrial on included offenses is barred by double jeopardy/abandonment (Quitog theory)	State: no abandonment; prosecution did not expressly concede guilt only on included offenses and left them for jury to consider	Deedy: prosecution’s trial strategy urged conviction only on murder thereby abandoning included offenses and barring retrial	Court: Rejects Quitog application; prosecution did not abandon included offenses and retrial allowed
Whether trial-court refusal to give included-offense instructions at first trial was an "acquittal" barring retrial	State: instruction rulings are legal/procedural, not factual acquittals; no acquittal occurred	Deedy: court’s ruling that there was no rational basis for instruction amounted to acquittal under Evans v. Michigan	Court: Denies—refusal to instruct is a legal determination, not an acquittal; double jeopardy inapplicable
Whether collateral estoppel (Ashe) bars retrial on recklessness/assaults	State: no final factual determination on recklessness; jury was hung on included offenses	Deedy: court already resolved lack of evidence for recklessness so issue precluded from relitigation	Court: Denies—no prior final adjudication of the ultimate factual issue, so collateral estoppel does not apply
Whether dismissal with prejudice was required under Moriwake balancing after two mistrials	State: Moriwake factors support retrial (seriousness, case strength, likelihood of different presentation, counsel competence)	Deedy: multiple lengthy trials, juror confusion, and state strategy favor dismissal with prejudice	Court: Affirms circuit court’s exercise of discretion—Moriwake factors weighed for retrial; no abuse of discretion
Whether Hawai‘i statutory bars (HRS §§701-109–111) preclude retrial	State: statutes concern separate prosecutions or acquittals of greater offense; retrial here is continuation of same prosecution	Deedy: statutory provisions bar subsequent prosecution for related offenses	Court: Denies—statutes do not bar retrial because charges were tried together and retrial is continuation, not a new prosecution
Whether Supremacy Clause federal-officer immunity bars state prosecution	State: disputed factual issues about whether Deedy acted within federal duties; if evidence conflicted state court retains jurisdiction	Deedy: acted as federal agent; conduct authorized and necessary so immune from state prosecution	Court: Denies—record shows Deedy was not acting in clear official capacity that night; immunity not established and, if evidence conflicts, state court retains jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai‘i 128, 938 P.2d 559 (Haw. 1997) (abandonment/double jeopardy framework when prosecution disclaims charged theory)
State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (Haw. 1982) (trial-court discretion to dismiss after hung juries; factors to balance)
State v. Deguair, 136 Hawai‘i 71, 358 P.3d 43 (Haw. 2015) (deference to trial court on Moriwake analysis)
State v. Hinton, 120 Hawai‘i 265, 204 P.3d 484 (Haw. 2009) (Moriwake application; jury confusion considered)
Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013) (definition of "acquittal" where court rules on sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (ruling that resolves factual elements may constitute an acquittal)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel as double jeopardy principle)
State v. Dow, 72 Haw. 56, 806 P.2d 402 (Haw. 1991) (acquittal definition adopts Martin Linen test)
State v. Adviento, 132 Hawai‘i 123, 319 P.3d 1131 (Haw. 2014) (trial courts must instruct on included offenses having rational basis)
State v. Flores, 131 Hawai‘i 43, 314 P.3d 120 (Haw. 2013) (failure to instruct on included offense can require retrial)
State v. Mundon, 129 Hawai‘i 1, 292 P.3d 205 (Haw. 2012) (retrial is continuation of prosecution after mistrial)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (trial judge’s discretion and deference on mistrial for hung jury)
Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) (federal officer acting in performance of duties may receive immunity in narrow circumstances)