State v. Deguair, 139 Haw. 117

Background

In 2008 Deguair, with co-defendants Woo and Teo, robbed the Aiea Cue and restrained four victims; Woo and Teo cooperated with the State and pleaded; Deguair was tried by jury.
Jury convicted Deguair of robbery (class B) and four kidnappings (one class A, three class B) and answered interrogatories finding each kidnapping was part of a continuous course of conduct with the robbery.
Circuit court merged the class B robbery into the higher-grade class A kidnapping (Count 2), dismissed the robbery conviction, and sentenced Deguair principally on Count 2.
On appeal the ICA vacated Count 2’s class A conviction (finding Deguair entitled to the mitigating defense) and remanded for resentencing on Count 2 as a class B; the ICA affirmed other rulings rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and denial of mistrial.
On certiorari the Hawai‘i Supreme Court (1) affirmed exclusion of most prior-bad-act evidence about Woo and Teo, (2) affirmed denial of mistrial for a struck question about shooting at Koko Head, but (3) held the kidnappings merged into the robbery under HRS §701-109(1)(e), reinstated the robbery conviction (Count 1), dismissed Counts 2–5, and remanded for resentencing on Count 1 only.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior bad-act evidence under HRE 404(b)	State: defense notice untimely and evidence unduly prejudicial/confusing	Deguair: evidence probative of duress; shows why he feared Teo/Woo	Court: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; much of the proffered evidence irrelevant or overly attenuated to duress issue
Motion for mistrial after prosecutor asked about shooting at Koko Head	State: question probative of preexisting relationship negating duress	Deguair: question was ambush and highly prejudicial; warranted mistrial	Court: no abuse of discretion; objection sustained before answer, curative instructions adequate, evidence against defendant strong enough
Applicability of mitigating defense reducing class A kidnapping to class B	Deguair: entitled to mitigation (voluntary release), so Count 2 should be class B	State: ICA remand to resentence Count 2 as class B; did not press merger alternative on appeal	ICA found mitigating defense applied to Count 2; Supreme Court agreed Count 2 should be reduced but addressed merger separately
Merger under HRS §701-109(1)(e) (continuous course of conduct)	Deguair: kidnappings were committed solely in furtherance of robbery and must merge into robbery	State: reliance on Padilla to assert prosecutorial election to choose which conviction survives	Court: Padilla distinguishable; jury found continuous course and no separate intent; kidnappings merge into single robbery conviction; reinstate robbery, dismiss Counts 2–5, resentence on Count 1 only

Key Cases Cited

State v. Padilla, 114 Hawai‘i 507, 164 P.3d 765 (ICA precedent on merger remedy) (discussed and distinguished)
State v. Matias, 102 Hawai‘i 300, 75 P.3d 1191 (statutory purpose of HRS §701-109 limiting multiple convictions)
State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai‘i 172, 907 P.2d 758 (standard for admissibility of 404(b) evidence)
State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai‘i 307, 909 P.2d 1122 (standard for prejudice analysis in prosecutorial misconduct/mistrial claims)
State v. Correa, 5 Haw. App. 644, 706 P.2d 1321 (distinguished; addressed different subsection of merger/lesser-included issue)