436 P.3d 1192
Haw. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Aug. 20, 2015, a police convoy to a telescope construction site encountered protesters shoulder-to-shoulder blocking Crater Road; most dispersed but seven (including Keith Kauhane) were seated and linked arm‑in‑arm and were arrested.
- Kauhane was charged by Second Amended Complaint with Failure to Disperse, Obstructing (HRS § 711‑1105(1)(a)), and Disorderly Conduct; a jury convicted him of Obstructing.
- At trial police testimony and video showed officers repeatedly ordered the crowd to move; Kauhane testified he did not hear an arrest warning and said he was praying/protesting.
- The complaint did not quote the statutory definition of “obstructs,” but the jury was given the statutory definition during instructions.
- Defense requested instructions on (a) the mitigating provision in HRS § 711‑1105(5) (reducing petty misdemeanor to a violation if defendant did not hear warning) and (b) the free‑speech/legal privilege in § 711‑1105(4); the court declined the former and did not instruct on § 711‑1105(4).
- The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded for retrial because the jury should have been instructed on the § 711‑1105(5) mitigating defense; it rejected other appellate challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of complaint for failing to define “obstructs” | State: the charge was adequate and the jury received the statutory definition at trial | Kauhane: complaint was defective for omitting the attendant‑circumstance definition rendering notice inadequate | Court: term is commonly understood; even if omission, no prejudice because jury received definition — no reversal on this ground |
| Failure to instruct on mitigating defense under HRS § 711‑1105(5) | State: ultimately conceded some evidence supported the defense | Kauhane: jury should have been instructed because he testified he did not hear the warning | Court: plain error to omit the instruction; conviction vacated and remanded for retrial |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support Obstructing conviction | State: evidence (police testimony, video) supports that Kauhane knowingly/recklessly persisted after warning | Kauhane: lacked legal privilege, did not hear warning, police remedy was sufficient so no obstruction | Court: viewing evidence for sufficiency, there was substantial evidence to convict, but ambiguity about hearing the warning is for retrial given the mitigating defense instruction issue |
| Golden‑rule objection and choice‑of‑evils defense | State: objected to defense counsel’s “walk in his shoes” argument as golden‑rule | Kauhane: argument was to illustrate his reasonable belief under choice of evils | Court: sustaining objection was error but harmless — the argument as phrased lacked the required objective "reasonable person" standard for choice of evils; jury instruction on choice of evils was given elsewhere |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wheeler, [citation="121 Hawai'i 383"] (discussing Motta/Wells rule for late challenges to charging instruments)
- State v. Kikuta, [citation="125 Hawai'i 78"] (trial court must instruct on mitigating defenses when some evidence supports them)
- State v. Maumalanga, [citation="90 Hawai'i 58"] (choice‑of‑evils defense elements defined by statute; belief must be objectively reasonable)
- State v. Nakamitsu, [citation="140 Hawai'i 157"] (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Henley, [citation="136 Hawai'i 471"] (use of special interrogatory when submitting certain mitigating defenses to the jury)