State v. Wagner., 139 Haw. 475

Background

Police searched John A. Wagner Jr.’s home on Dec. 23, 2010 and found ~45.38 grams (≈1.6 oz) of methamphetamine, paraphernalia (pipe, zip packets, scale, straw), large cash roll, multiple cell phones, and items bearing Wagner’s identification.
Wagner was charged with first-degree methamphetamine trafficking (HRS § 712‑1240.7(1)(a)) alleging possession of ≥1 ounce "with one prior conviction for Methamphetamine Trafficking," and two counts of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia (HRS § 329‑43.5).
At trial Wagner stipulated that he had one prior felony conviction, but the parties agreed the jury would only be told it was a felony (not that it was for meth trafficking); the stipulated language was nonetheless read to the jury.
The jury convicted Wagner on all counts. At sentencing the court imposed a 20‑year term with a mandatory minimum of 13 years 4 months based on the asserted prior methamphetamine trafficking conviction.
The ICA affirmed. Wagner sought certiorari to the Hawai'i Supreme Court arguing the prior conviction was improperly treated as an element of the offense and was prejudicially presented to the jury.
The Hawai'i Supreme Court held the trial court erred by construing the prior conviction as an element (thus submitting it to the jury); it vacated the ICA judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant's prior methamphetamine trafficking conviction under HRS § 712‑1240.7 is an element of the offense or a sentencing enhancement	State: prior conviction may be an element and may be proved via stipulation to the jury	Wagner: prior conviction is a sentencing factor and should not be presented to the jury (prejudicial)	Prior conviction is a sentencing enhancement factor, not an element; presenting it to the jury was error
Whether reading the stipulation about the prior felony to the jury was permissible	State: stipulation avoids calling witnesses and may be read; not prohibited	Wagner: telling the jury about prior felony risked unfair prejudice despite limiting instructions	Reading the stipulated prior felony to the jury improperly subjected defendant to prejudice; error not harmless
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for trafficking and paraphernalia offenses	State: inculpatory physical evidence and circumstantial indicia of distribution support convictions	Wagner: co‑occupant (Pea) admitted or took responsibility, undermining sufficiency	There was substantial evidence to support the convictions on the merits (but trial error requires new trial)
Whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	State: stipulation and limiting instructions cured prejudice	Wagner: jurors likely prejudiced; instructions insufficient	Error not harmless; reasonable possibility jurors were influenced -> remand for new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Domingues, [citation="106 Hawai'i 480"] (analysis on when prior convictions are attendant circumstances)
State v. Kekuewa, [citation="114 Hawai'i 411"] (reaffirming Domingues’ due‑process concerns about notice and jury trial rights)
State v. Ruggiero, [citation="114 Hawai'i 227"] (applying Domingues to statutory amendments regarding recidivist provisions)
State v. Murray, [citation="116 Hawai'i 3"] (holding prior conviction within a time window can be an attendant circumstance)
State v. Auld, [citation="136 Hawai'i 244"] (Apprendi exception for prior convictions and its limits; discussed in opinion)
State v. Behrendt, [citation="124 Hawai'i 90"] (standard for admissibility of prior bad‑act evidence under HRE Rule 404(b))