No. SCAP-23-000088, Thursday, June 19, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARD BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV 55 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant BERNARD BROWN:
     Randall K. Hironaka of Miyoshi & Hironaka

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Chad Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Amicus Curiae ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     David Van Acker, Deputy Attorney General

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Transfer, filed 03/28/24.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 04/29/25 to 06/19/25 at 10:30 a.m., filed 04/17/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion allowing each side a maximum of forty-five minutes for argument, filed 06/16/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

In 2022, Defendant-Appellant Bernard Brown (Brown) was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) for the homicide of Moreira Monsalve (Monsalve).  Monsalve had not been seen since January 2014.  Brown was convicted by a Maui jury of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

In 2023, Brown appealed his conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  The appeal was subsequently transferred to this court. 

In his appeal, Brown asserts several points of error, including but not limited to the following:

• the prosecution’s evidence “was insufficient to support conviction for second-degree murder”;
• “Brown’s first statement to police . . . was inadmissible at trial for want of the warning and waiver of constitutional rights”;
• the information obtained by the prosecution’s subpoena “from Hawaiian Telcom identifying Brown as a subscriber to whom an incriminating IP address was assigned” was inadmissible at trial for violation of Brown’s constitutional rights;
• the circuit court “should have instructed the jury on second-degree murder’s included offenses” because there was a rational basis to instruct on murder’s included offenses;
• the prosecutor’s repeated use of the phrase “we know” during closing and rebuttal arguments was prosecutorial misconduct;
• preindictment delay violated Brown’s rights to a speedy trial and “should have triggered dismissal with prejudice.”