STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS RYAN BEKKUM, Respondent and 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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant CURTIS RYAN BEKKUM:
Hayden Aluli

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/30/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao, in place of Recktenwald, C. J., recused, filed 09/30/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/02/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Malinao, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:
This case arises out of Curtis Ryan Bekkum’s conviction on two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree. Bekkum argued for the first time on appeal that the charging complaint was fatally defective because it did not define the statutory term “compulsion.” The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) agreed and vacated Bekkum’s conviction. The ICA reasoned the statutory definition of “compulsion” does not comport with its common meaning, and the absence of the statutory definition in the complaint failed to provide Bekkum with fair notice” of the charges against him.

On certiorari, the State of Hawai‘i contends the ICA erred because (1) it did not consider the information provided to Bekkum by the time he raised the insufficiency of the charging instrument on appeal, and (2) it applied an incorrect standard of review.