No. CAAP-24-0000471, Wednesday, September 17, 2025, 10 a.m.
No. CAAP-24-0000471, Wednesday, September 17, 2025, 10 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HARDY K. AH PUCK, JR., also known as HARDY K. AH PUCK, Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliʻiōlani Hale, 2nd 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 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant HARDY K. AH PUCK, JR., also known as HARDY K. AH PUCK:
Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Sara K. Haley, and Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defenders
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAIʻI:
Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Attorney for Amicus Curiae ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI:
Caitlyn B. Carpenter, Deputy Solicitor General
NOTE: Order Rescinding Order of No Oral Argument and Setting Oral Argument, filed 7/21/2025
COURT: Nakasone, C.J., Leonard, and Hiraoka, JJ.
Brief Description:
Hardy K. Ah Puck, Jr. was charged in circuit court by Felony Information and Non-felony Complaint with four counts of Theft and four counts of Habitual Property Crime. The charges were based on Ah Puck having allegedly taken several things that didn’t belong to him from the Lahaina Civic Center while it was used as the disaster recovery center for the Lahaina wildfires. A district court judge found probable cause, issued an arrest warrant, and set bail. A jury found Ah Puck guilty of Theft in the Fourth Degree and Habitual Property Crime. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty days for Theft and five years for Habitual Property Crime.
On appeal, Ah Puck argues that a district court judge could not legally have found probable cause or issued an arrest warrant on a circuit court felony information. He also argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of Habitual Property Crime because there was no evidence of a property crime other than the one upon which his Theft conviction was based.
We ordered supplemental briefing on: (1) whether Theft is the “same offense” as Habitual Property Crime for purposes of the double jeopardy clause, article I, section 10 of the Hawai’i Constitution; and (2) whether the legislature intended to impose multiple punishments upon a defendant for Habitual Property Crime and the included property crime.