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

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-29937, Thursday, March 8, 2012, 9 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GLENN KEOHOKAPU, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant: Cynthia A. Kagiwada

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee: Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney, and James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/14/12.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Glenn Keohokapu, Jr. (Petitioner) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking the October 6, 2011 judgment of the ICA filed pursuant to its September 22, 2011 summary disposition order (SDO), affirming the June 22, 2009 judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the court).


Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of Manslaughter. Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi sought an extended term sentence pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-662, to increase the maximum length of Petitioner’s imprisonment for the offense of Manslaughter increased from twenty years of incarceration to life with the possibility of parole. The court conducted a sentencing hearing, during which the parties presented evidence to the jury. Pursuant to two special interrogatories, the jury found that Respondent had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was a persistent offender in that he had committed two or more felonies at different times when he was 18 years of age or older, and that it was necessary for the protection of the public to subject Petitioner to an extended term of imprisonment.


In his application, Petitioner questions whether the ICA gravely erred by holding that: (1) [Petitioner] received a fair trial by an impartial jury; (2) no evidentiary errors occurred during the sentencing phase or that the errors were harmless; (3) no error occurred when the court instructed the jury on parole during the sentencing phase.