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

Oral Argument before the Supreme Court

No. SCWC-29131, Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 9:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PATRICK K. K. HO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

(Sexual Assault in the First Degree)

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant: Peter Van Name Esser

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee: Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

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

William S. Richardson School of Law
Moot Courtroom
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2350

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/25/12.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Patrick K. K. Ho seeks review of the December 1, 2011 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) filed pursuant to its November 14, 2011 summary disposition order (SDO), as corrected on November 16, 2011,affirming the April 24, 2008 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence entered in the Family Court of the First Circuit (the court).

According to Respondent/Plaintiff/Appellee State of Hawai`i (Respondent), Petitioner, who was 64 years old, sexually assaulted his granddaughter (CW), the complaining witness, during a twelve-month period before and after her 14th birthday. Petitioner was tried before a jury, and was convicted of two counts of First Degree Sexual Assault, HRS § 707-730(1), and three counts of Third Degree Sexual Assault, HRS § 707-732(1).

In his petition, Petitioner argues his right to exercise peremptory challenges was impaired because he was compelled to exercise two of his three peremptories to strike two jurors who were sexually assaulted as teenagers when the court refused to disqualify those two jurors for cause. Petitioner also contends that the court committed plain error in removing two other jurors for cause at Respondent’s behest after all peremptory challenges had been exercised. [Id.] According to Petitioner, this effectively meant that Respondent was able to exercise two additional peremptory challenges, in violation of HRPP Rule 24(d) and case law.