Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-13-0002894, Thursday, July 2, 2015, 08:45 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAYSON AULD, 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:

Benjamin E. Lowenthal

Attorney for Respondent:

Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/20/15.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Jayson Auld was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 708-841(1)(a). He was sentenced to ten years of incarceration, subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of six years and eight months as a repeat offender. On certiorari, Auld presents a threefold challenge to his conviction and sentence.

First, he argues that his mandatory minimum sentence violated the rule set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489 (2000): “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The United States Supreme Court recently extended the Apprendi rule to mandatory minimum sentencing in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013).

Second, he asserts that the circuit court plainly erred in admitting the complaining witness’s statement about a pool stick Auld had sold him. The complaining witness testified that another person told him the pool stick was stolen. Auld contends the statement was hearsay that affected his substantial rights to (1) confront and cross-examine the witness and (2) to remain silent, as Auld may have decided to testify to explain that he did not steal the pool stick.

Third, Auld contends that the circuit court plainly erred in allowing the prosecutor, in opening statements, to argue that Auld’s case was about “the younger and stronger” “taking advantage of” and “overpowering” the “weaker and older.”