313 P.3d 708
Haw.2013Background
- Getz was charged with Robbery in the Second Degree under HRS §708-841(1)(a) for an April 21, 2011 Nordstrom incident in Honolulu.
- Two loss-prevention witnesses testified: Rueber and Saffery observed Getz with a handbag and pursued him as he exited toward the parking area.
- Getz and the handbag were involved in a two-minute struggle on the Nordstrom stairwell; Rueber and Saffery attempted to detain him.
- During jury instruction, the court withdrew a standard unanimity instruction and did not require unanimity as to which person Getz used force against.
- The ICA affirmed the conviction; the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a new trial due to a lack of a specific unanimity instruction, finding plain error.
- The majority held that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that remand for a new trial was appropriate, with double jeopardy considerations not impeding remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity instruction required for conduct element | State argues no Arceo unanimity instruction needed | Getz contends failure to give specific unanimity instruction violated right to unanimous verdict | Yes; the circuit court erred by not instructing unanimity as to the acted-upon person |
| Harmlessness of the unanimity error | State maintains the error was harmless | Getz asserts error could have affected verdict due to two possible targets | No; error not Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Remand versus double jeopardy concerns | State relies on sufficiency to support new trial | Getz argues retrial should be barred if conviction could not stand | Remand for new trial permissible; double jeopardy not implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceo v. State, 84 Haw. 1 (Haw. 1996) (unanimity required when multiple acts could support a single offense)
- Cordeiro v. State, 99 Haw. 390 (Haw. 2002) (specific unanimity required where two acts support one robbery count)
- Valentine v. State, 93 Haw. 199 (Haw. 2000) (unanimity instruction needed when multiple acts; election or specific unanimity)
- State v. Jones, 96 Haw. 161 (Haw. 2001) (unanimity considerations in multi-act proofs)
- State v. Kaulia, 128 Haw. 479 (Haw. 2013) (standard for sufficiency and remand in double jeopardy context)