STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA, also known as AREN AHINA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
 
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd 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 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA:
     Richard D. Gronna

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 04/23/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/08/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

On three occasions in late 2019, surveillance video captured an individual throwing rocks at the window of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café in Wailuku, Maui.  Responding Maui Police Department Officer Zachary Kamaka reviewed surveillance video and identified the individual as his former high school substitute teacher, Ahina.  Ahina was subsequently charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with three counts of criminal property damage in the second degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 708-821(1)(b).

Before trial, Ahina’s attorney requested a preliminary Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 104 hearing regarding the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification of Ahina, which the circuit court denied. Officer Kamaka then identified Ahina as the individual depicted in surveillance video damaging windows of Stillwell’s Bakery & Café based on his familiarity with Ahina as his former substitute teacher.  Ahina’s attorney then requested that the jury be given an eyewitness identification.  Concluding that Officer Kamaka was not an eyewitness, the circuit court declined to instruct the jury on eyewitness identification factors.  The jury found Ahina guilty as charged and the circuit court sentenced him to a four-year term of probation.    

Ahina appealed his conviction, challenging in relevant part the admissibility of Officer Kamaka’s identification testimony without a Rule 104 hearing and the circuit court’s omission of an eyewitness testimony jury instruction.  The ICA affirmed the conviction.

This court accepted certiorari as to whether the circuit court erred in (1) admitting Officer Kamaka’s testimony into evidence without a Rule 104 hearing and (2) omitting an instruction to the jury regarding the identification of Ahina.