STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KEVIN C. METCALFE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant:
John M. Tonaki, Public Defender, and Summer M.M. Kupau, Deputy Public Defender.
Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:
Charlene Y. Iboshi, Prosecuting Attorney, and Ricky R. Damerville, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto due to a vacancy, filed 07/12/12.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/08/12.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, & SSM, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto due to a vacancy.
Petitioner/defendant-appellant Kevin C. Metcalfe filed an application for a writ of certiorari to review the April 24, 2012 Judgment on Appeal of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), issued pursuant to its March 30, 2012 Memorandum Opinion. The ICA’s judgment affirmed the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit’s (circuit court) March 25, 2010 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, which convicted Metcalfe of Manslaughter, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-702, and Carrying or Use of Firearm in the Commission of a Separate Felony, in violation of HRS § 134-21(a). This case arises from an incident in which Metcalfe fired a shotgun at Larry Kuahuia, resulting in Kuahuia’s death. Metcalfe asserts that he fired the shots at Kuahuia in self-defense because Kuahuia charged at Metcalfe when Metcalfe confronted Kuahuia, who was allegedly stealing Metcalfe’s property.
Metcalfe argues that the ICA gravely erred in determining that: (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss the amended complaint without reviewing the transcripts from a grand jury proceeding that resulted in a no bill and the transcripts of a subsequent preliminary hearing in which probable cause was found; (2) the circuit court did not plainly err in permitting the opinion testimony of two of the prosecution’s witnesses; (3) the circuit court’s jury instruction regarding the opinion testimony was harmless; (4) the circuit court’s jury instruction on self-defense was not prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading; (5) the circuit court did not plainly err in failing to instruct the jury on defense of property; (6) the circuit court did not plainly err in failing to provide the jury with a cautionary instruction regarding the possession or use of medical marijuana; and (7) his trial counsel was not ineffective.