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

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-16-0000604

No. SCWC-16-0000604, Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL GLENN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Attorney for petitioner:

Emmanuel G. Guerrero of the Law Offices of Emmanuel G. Guerrero, LLLC

Attorney for respondent:

Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/26/19.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ]

Brief Description:

In 2014, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Glenn (Glenn) was charged with one count of Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 707-716(1)(e).

Early in the proceedings, questions were raised regarding Glenn’s fitness to proceed and penal responsibility. Accordingly, at the request of Glenn’s counsel, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) ordered Glenn to be evaluated by a panel of three mental health examiners. After two of the three examiners concluded that Glenn was unfit to proceed and lacked penal responsibility, the circuit court suspended the proceedings and committed Glenn to the care and custody of the Director of the Department of Health for treatment.

After further evaluations and hearings, the circuit court determined that Glenn was fit to stand trial, despite mixed conclusions by his examiners. Prior to trial, Glenn told his examiners that he did not believe he was mentally ill and that he did not want to assert a defense based on lack of penal responsibility. Glenn thus asserted a theory of self-defense at trial, and was subsequently found guilty as charged.

Glenn unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and on certiorari, now asks this court to review whether the circuit court plainly erred: (1) by failing to obtain a waiver from Glenn with regard to the assertion of a defense based on lack of penal responsibility; or (2) by failing to instruct the jury on the defense, sua sponte.