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

Oral Arugments before the Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30138 Thursday, August 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m.

NOTE: The recording has been edited to delete the name of a complaining witness.

State of Hawaii Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOHN C. VEIKOSO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

(Sexual Assault in the First Degree)

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

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Defendant-Appellant: Randall K. Hironaka of Miyoshi & Hironaka

NOTE: Order accepting application for writ of certiorari, filed 06/03/11.


The above oral argument is set in:

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

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

 Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi (Petitioner) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the February 1, 2011 judgment of the ICA, filed pursuant to its December 9, 2010 Memorandum Opinion. The ICA affirmed the September 28, 2009 Judgment filed by the circuit court of the first circuit (the court), as to the conviction of Respondent John C. Veikoso (Respondent) on Counts 1-3 (involving Complaining Witness (CW) #1), but vacated the Judgment and remanded for a new trial on Counts 4-8 (involving CW #2). Respondent is alleged to have solicited, kidnapped and sexually assaulted CW #1 and CW #2 on two separate occasions. Petitioner’s Application pertains only to the counts involving CW #2.

On appeal, the ICA held, inter alia, that (1) the court erred in admitting testimony of the physician, who examined CW #2, regarding alleged threats made by Respondent against CW #2 and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In its Application,Petitioner concedes that the court erred in admitting the testimony, but argues that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that the error was not harmless because there was overwhelming evidence supporting Respondent’s convictions for counts 4-8.