Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Hawaii Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Honolulu District Court buildings are closed today due to an area power outage. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-11-0000550, (CR. No. 10-1-0904), Wednesday, June 26, 2013, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SHAUN L. CABINATAN, Petitioner/Defendant-

Appellant, and KIMO MOORE, Respondent/Defendant.

 (CR. NO. 09-1-0854) STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SHAUN L. CABINATAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner:

Jon N. Ikenaga, Deputy Public Defender

Attorney for Respondent:

Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/13.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/defendant-appellant Shaun L. Cabinatan timely filed an application for a writ of certiorari to review the January 25, 2013 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), issued pursuant to its December 27, 2012 summary disposition order (SDO). The ICA’s judgment affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) June 22, 2011 “Judgment of Conviction and Sentence” in Cr. No. 10-1-0904 and “Order of Resentencing; Revocation of Probation” in Cr. No. 09-1-0854.

Cabinatan was tried by a jury for burglary and unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle (UEMV). According to evidence presented at trial, Cabinatan was identified by the complaining witness as a participant in the burglary during a police field show-up procedure. Cabinatan was convicted of both charges and sentenced to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of ten years for burglary and five years for UEMV. As a result of those convictions, the circuit court revoked Cabinatan’s probation term in an unrelated case and resentenced him in that case to a consecutive five-year term of imprisonment.

In his application, Cabinatan argues that (1) his burglary and UEMV convictions should be vacated because the circuit court did not provide the jury a specific eyewitness identification instruction, and (2) the circuit court’s order revoking Cabinatan’s probation, which was based on the burglary and UEMV convictions, should also be vacated.