State v. Deleon.Â
131 Haw. 463
Haw.2014Background
- Phillip DeLeon was convicted of Murder in the Second Degree and related firearm and related offenses tied to a July 31, 2009 shooting.
- ICA reversed one Count IV conviction (Carrying or Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Separate Felony) but affirmed remaining convictions.
- DeLeon argued two issues on certiorari: trial counsel ineffectiveness regarding cocaine evidence; and self-defense jury instruction allegedly incomplete.
- The Hawai'i Supreme Court held trial counsel ineffective assistance claim insufficient, but found a plain error in excluding cocaine testimony and vacated Counts II and IV.
- The Court affirmed the circuit court’s self-defense instruction as not erroneous and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s handling of cocaine evidence was ineffective | DeLeon claims counsel failed to establish Powell’s cocaine use, impairing self-defense | DeLeon contends exclusion of cocaine evidence deprived defense | No ineffective assistance; but error of excluding cocaine testimony was plain |
| Whether the self-defense instruction was erroneous for omitting HRS 703-304(3) language | ICA erred in rejecting missing statutory language | DeLeon asserts inadequate self-defense guidance | Instruction not erroneous under the then-current framework |
| Whether exclusion of Dr. Wong’s cocaine testimony violated due process | Exclusion prevented complete defense | Testimony admissible under Rule 702 without requiring certainty | Plain error; exclusion violated due process and Count II and IV vacated |
| Whether EMED or extreme mental or emotional disturbance instruction was properly treated | EMED instruction should have been given | Not error to deny EMED | (Not central to final disposition in the opinion; ICA handled issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wakisaka, 102 Haw. 504, 78 P.3d 317 (2003) (Haw. 2003) (ineffective-assistance standard; required showing of impairment not mere prejudice)
- State v. Augustin, 101 Haw. 127, 63 P.3d 1097 (2002) (Haw. 2002) (self-defense instructions must communicate subjective and objective standards)
- State v. Nichols, 111 Haw. 327, 141 P.3d 974 (2006) (Haw. 2006) (unobjected jury instructions reviewed for plain error/harmlessness)
- Miyamoto v. Lum, 104 Haw. 1, 84 P.3d 509 (2004) (Haw. 2004) (medical opinions must be grounded in reasonable medical probability)
- United States v. Mornan, 413 F.3d 372, 381 (3d Cir. 2005) (3d Cir. 2005) (no requirement for ‘reasonable degree of scientific certainty’)
- Estrada, State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 738 P.2d 812 (1987) (Haw. 1987) (prospective framework for self-defense judicial instructions)