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

Oral Argument before the Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30337 Thursday, December 20, 2012, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TERRANCE E. ATWOOD, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant:

David A. Sereno

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:

Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

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: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 08/27/12.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto in place of CJ Recktenwald, filed 08/29/12.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/05/12.

COURT: PAN, Acting CJ; SRA, SSM, & RWP, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Karl K. Sakamoto, in place of CJ Recktenwald, recused.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner Terrance E. Atwood filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the June 25, 2012 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) filed pursuant to its May 17, 2012 Summary Disposition Order (SDO). The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s December 16, 2009 order that denied Atwood’s motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment charging him with theft in the first degree by deception. A grand jury had indicted Atwood based on evidence that he falsely represented himself to be a licensed contractor in order to induce Dr. Jenwei Luu into hiring him for a home remodeling project and that obtaining money from Luu thus constituted theft by deception pursuant to HRS § 708-830(2).

In his application, Atwood argues that the ICA gravely erred in affirming the circuit court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the theft charge. Atwood contends that he did not obtain Luu’s money by deception because the evidence before the grand jury did not show that he intended not to perform the remodeling contract. In response, the State argues that Atwood “obtained the property of another by deception with intent to deprive the other of the property” because he knowingly created and thereafter failed to correct the false impression that he was a licensed contractor. We asked for further briefing on whether sufficient evidence was presented to indict Atwood for theft “[o]f property or services, the value of which exceeds $20,000[,]” pursuant to HRS § 708-830.5(1)(a).