STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAINOA DAMON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani 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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant NAINOA DAMON:
     Audrey Stanley

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter K. Kubota due to a vacancy, filed 05/14/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/29/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kubota assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

In 2024, Defendant-Appellant Nainoa Damon (Damon) was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and related firearm charges.  The jury further found that a sentence enhancement should be imposed pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-660.1.  Accordingly, Damon was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed Damon’s conviction.  Damon raises the following questions for decision:

• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court did not deprive Damon of his constitutional right to a fair trial and impartial jury by keeping a juror that was emotional, distraught, and afraid after an outburst in court involving Damon’s relative?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the trial court appropriately allowed evidence of an updated expert report and appropriately allowed two witnesses to testify, when the updated expert report and additional witnesses were disclosed on the eve of trial?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding the jury need not be instructed on mens rea when answering a special interrogatory on the use of a firearm under HRS § 706-660.1?
• Did the ICA gravely err in concluding that the record as not sufficiently developed to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective, under the circumstances?