No. SCWC-23-0000296, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 9 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARLIN L. LAVOIE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant MARLIN L. LAVOIE:

     Matthew S. Kohm

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Chad Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/08/25.

NOTE: Amended Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/09/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

A jury convicted Marlin Lavoie of second-degree murder and other firearm crimes.  The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for murder, and ordered that the firearm sentences were to be served concurrently.  Lavoie appealed, and ultimately this court remanded for a new trial.

On remand, Lavoie pled guilty to manslaughter and other firearm charges.  Before sentencing, a pre-sentence diagnosis and report was filed.  Lavoie requested $8,700 in expert costs to obtain a dangerousness assessment to supplement this report.  The court denied the full request, but granted $1,000 to hire the expert.

Before sentencing, for procedural reasons, Lavoie’s case was dismissed.  He was re-indicted in a new docket.  Lavoie again pled guilty.  The court sentenced Lavoie to an aggregate 40 years imprisonment: 20 years for manslaughter, served consecutively to 20 years for commission of a felony with a firearm.

Lavoie appealed.  He challenged the court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing and the denial of his full request for expert costs.  The ICA affirmed, holding that the court lawfully sentenced Lavoie.  The ICA also held that the court properly denied Lavoie’s motion for expert costs because Lavoie failed to renew that request after he was re-indicted.  Lavoie argues to this court that the ICA gravely erred.