Judiciary systems including JEFS, eCourt Kokua, and Document Drop-off will be unavailable due to maintenance work beginning midnight Friday, September 23, to noon, Sunday, September 25. If work is completed sooner, systems may be restored earlier. Applications, including eReminder, eJuror, and eTraffic will not be affected. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 29994 – Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 9 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TALELE MIKA, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee
Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney and Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Attorney for Defendant-Appelant
Richard D. Gronna
COURT: Foley, Leonard, and Reifurth, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
Defendant-Appellant Talele Mika (Mika) appeals from the September 23, 2009 Final Judgment and Sentence (Judgment) of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) convicting him of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree under HRS §712- 1243 and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia under HRS §329-43.5.
Wishing to question Mika further about a local burglary, concerning which he had previously been questioned, the police arranged to have a third party contact Mika and arrange for him to be at a convenience store at a specified time. While Mika was at the convenience store, he was approached by four police officers who asked him to go to the police station to be interviewed regarding an alleged burglary. Mika was arrested as a result of statements he made during the interview that followed, and an “ice” pipe was recovered from his possession during a search incident to the burglary arrest.
On appeal, Mika argues that the circuit court erred: (1) by failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact under HRS §702-218 based on Mika’s argument that the drug paraphernalia recovered from his possession belonged to someone else; and (2) by denying his Motion to Dismiss Felony Information and/or in the Alternative Motion to Suppress Evidence based in part on the circuit court’s finding that Mika’s encounter with police at the convenience store was not a seizure and that he had volunteered to go to the police station to be interviewed.