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

Water has been restored and the Kapolei Courthouse will reopen tomorrow, May 24. Read more here.

Oral Arugments before the Supreme Court

No. SCWC-30500 Thursday, October 6, 2011, 11:00 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ORLANDO PECPEC, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

(Violation of an Order for Protection)

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant: Stuart N. Fujioka

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

NOTE: Order accepting application for writ of certiorari, filed 09/09/11.


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/defendant-appellant Orlando Pecpec timely petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to review the June 7, 2011 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to its May 25, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, affirming the June 4, 2010 Amended Judgment of Conviction and Sentence of the Family Court of the First Circuit.

The family court’s judgment convicted Pecpec on 19 counts (Counts 7-25) of Violation of an Order for Protection in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 586-11. The family court sentenced Pecpec to a one-year jail term on each count. The sentence on Counts 7-12 and 14-25 was to run concurrently. However, the family court sentenced Pecpec to a consecutive term on Count 13, based on comments allegedly made by Pecpec and contained in State’s Exhibit 17.

Pecpec argues that the circuit court erred in failing to give the jury a specific unanimity instruction, and that his convictions therefore may not have been based on a unanimous verdict. Pecpec also argues that the circuit court erred in sentencing him to a consecutive sentence on Count 13, because Count 13 was predicated on a verdict that was not unanimous, and because it was not clear that Count 13 corresponded to the conduct contained in State’s Exhibit 17.