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

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30161,Thursday, October 4, 2012, 10 a.m.

(Amended 07/16/12

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PAMELA L. TAYLOR, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

(Theft in the Second Degree)

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee:

 Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry, First Deputy Solicitor General

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellant:

John M. Tonaki, Public Defender, and Phyllis J. Hironaka, Deputy Public Defender

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

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Colette Y. Garibaldi due to a vacancy, filed 06/13/12.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/06/12.

NOTE: Order granting motion to reschedule oral argument to 10/04/12.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, & SSM, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Colette Y. Garibaldi due to a vacancy.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi timely filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari to review the ICA’s March 27, 2012 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its February 29, 2012 Summary Disposition Order, vacating the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s October 7, 2009 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, and remanding this case for a new trial. The State presents a single question: “Whether this Court’s holding in State v. Stenger, 122 Hawai`i 271, 226 P.3d 441 (2010), was wrongly decided. If this Court overrules Stenger, it should then uphold Taylor’s conviction.”

At issue in this case is whether Respondent/Defendant-Appellant Pamela Taylor was entitled to a mistake-of-fact jury instruction, an issue Taylor raised for the first time on appeal. Taylor was charged with, and convicted of, theft in the second degree by deception, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes §§ 708-830(2) and 708-831(1)(b). At trial, the State’s theory of the case was that Taylor allegedly offered to provide legal services (without a law license) to an individual, and subsequently obtained or exerted control over a retainer check for $7,000 by deception. The defense’s theory of the case, on the other hand, was that Taylor was herself a victim of deception, mistakenly believing that she was offering legal services on behalf of two people who were, in reality, not lawyers.