CAAP-14-0001090, Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KEAKA MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliiolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:

Lars Isaacson

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee:

Garrett T. Maruyama and Kimberly K. Angay, Deputies Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawaii

COURT: Fujise and Reifurth, JJ., and Chan, J., in place of Foley, J. retired.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

After a jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Keaka Martin (Martin) was convicted of offenses relating to shooting and injuring two police officers who approached him while he was hiding underneath a car in Hilo.

Martin raises nine points on appeal. He asserts, first, that the trial court gave improper Tachibana warnings by failing to ensure that Martin knowingly waived his right to testify. Second, the trial court judge failed to recuse himself for donating $5.00 to the wife of one of the shooting victims within days of the incident. Third, the trial court improperly admitted evidence relating to Martin’s attempted suicide the day after the shooting. Fourth, the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Martin having fired a gun in the past and stating that he knew he had a warrant, that he would not go to jail without a fight, and “fuck the cops”, and that the trial court failed to provide a limiting instructions concerning these acts. Fifth, Martin was entitled to jury instructions on lesser-included offenses. Sixth, the jury rendered an impermissibly inconsistent verdict by finding him guilty of Assault I of one officer and Attempted Murder of the other. Seventh, there was insufficient evidence of Martin’s intent to cause the death of one of the police officers to support the conviction for attempted murder. Eight, the trial court wrongfully imposed consecutive sentences for the sole purpose of extending the period of time Martin must serve prior to being eligible for a Governor’s pardon. And ninth, Martin’s trial counsel was ineffective for presenting a deficient defense. He asks the court to vacate his conviction and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.