State v. Faamama., 139 Haw. 94

Defendant Leon Faamama was tried for Theft in the First Degree for allegedly obtaining between ~$134,560 and $164,000 from victim Pastor John Vaughn by deception (claiming Drug Court extortion).
Vaughn testified he gave large sums in cash, corroborated by bank/credit spreadsheets; only four receipts signed by Faamama plus one $500 check were physically documented (~$19,175 total).
Defense sought a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense Theft in the Second Degree (Theft 2) because the receipts supported at least ~$18,000 but not necessarily > $20,000 required for Theft in the First Degree (Theft 1); the court refused and the jury convicted Faamama of Theft 1.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, finding any instructional error harmless and upholding other rulings; Faamama sought certiorari to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held the trial court erred by refusing the Theft 2 instruction because a rational view of the evidence could acquit of Theft 1 and convict of Theft 2, and that error was not harmless; conviction vacated and case remanded for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was substantial evidence to support Theft 1 conviction	State: Vaughn's testimony plus financial exhibits corroborate losses > $20,000, so no rational basis for lesser verdict	Faamama: Only ~$19,175 was corroborated by receipts/checks; jurors could reasonably doubt amounts above that, supporting Theft 2	Court: There was a rational basis to acquit of Theft 1 and convict of Theft 2; instruction should have been given
Whether failure to instruct on lesser-included theft offenses was harmless	State: Evidence overwhelmingly supported Theft 1; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Faamama: Omission deprived jury of option supported by evidence and was prejudicial	Court: Error was not harmless; Flores requires presenting lesser offenses when rational basis exists
Whether Theft 2 is a lesser-included offense of Theft 1	State: Not disputed that Theft 2 is included; dispute was factual (amount)	Faamama: Agreed Theft 2 is lesser-included; requested instruction based on factual record	Court: Confirmed Theft 2 is a lesser-included offense and instruction required when rational basis exists
Whether other precedents require withholding lesser-included instructions here	State: Cited Nichols and Sneed as analogous to deny instruction	Faamama: Distinguished those cases on their facts (no alternative reasonable inference)	Court: Distinguished Nichols and Sneed; those did not present a rational basis for lesser verdict like this case

State v. Haanio, [citation="94 Hawai'i 405, 16 P.3d 246"] (trial courts must instruct on included offenses when a rational basis exists)
State v. Flores, [citation="131 Hawai'i 43, 314 P.3d 120"] (failure to instruct on lesser-included offense is not automatically harmless; preserves jury's truth-seeking role)
State v. Stenger, [citation="122 Hawai'i 271, 226 P.3d 441"] (jury credibility determinations and requirement to instruct when rational basis exists)
State v. Nichols, [citation="111 Hawai'i 327, 141 P.3d 974"] (distinguished; no alternative reasonable inference in that case)
State v. Sneed, 68 Haw. 463, 718 P.2d 280 (distinguished; defendant presented only denial so no basis for lesser-included conviction)
State v. Kassebeer, [citation="118 Hawai'i 493, 193 P.3d 409"] (standard of review for jury instructions)
State v. Sawyer, [citation="88 Hawai'i 325, 966 P.2d 637"] (instructional adequacy standard)