No. SCWC-22-0000464, Thursday, November 14, 2024, 2 p.m.
|
No. SCWC-22-0000464, Thursday, November 14, 2024, 2 p.m. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ERIK WILLIS, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. [ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ] [ Watch the video recording on YouTube ] The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I: Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellant ERIK WILLIS: NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/10/24. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: Erik Willis was charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree in connection with the stabbing of 17-year-old M.K. at Kahala Beach on July 8, 2020. At trial, the State presented surveillance video footage of a man identified as Willis getting on and off the Bus near Kahala Beach around the time of the stabbing. A witness for the State testified that he saw a man washing his hands and face in a white sink near the incident scene a short time after the stabbing. No evidence of blood from the sink was entered into the record. During closing arguments, the deputy prosecuting attorney referenced the witness testimony, stating that Willis “washed his hands and his face because he had blood on them.” The jury convicted Willis of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree. Willis filed a motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion. Willis appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). He argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing to the jury in closing, without evidence or basis in the record, that Willis had blood on his hands and t-shirt. Further, Willis contended, the witness had not identified the man washing his hands as Willis, nor was there any evidence of blood found on the sink. The State argued that the prosecutor’s comments drew reasonable inferences from the evidence on the record and were not misconduct. The ICA vacated Willis’ conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. It concluded that the statements amounted to misconduct and there was a “reasonable possibility that this misconduct might have affected the trial’s outcome.” The State now asks this court to reverse the ICA’s holding and affirm Willis’ conviction, arguing that the ICA erred in its finding of prosecutorial misconduct. The issue before this court is whether the prosecutor’s statements at trial amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and, if so, whether there was a reasonable possibility the alleged misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. |