*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCAP-15-0000440
14-DEC-2017
09:12 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
---o0o--STATE OF HAWAI#I,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER DEEDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
SCAP-15-0000440
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CAAP-15-0000440; CR. NO. 11-1-1647)
DECEMBER 14, 2017
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAYAMA, J.
Defendant-Appellant Christopher Deedy (Deedy) was
charged with one count of murder in the second degree and one
count of carrying or using a firearm in the commission of a
separate felony after fatally shooting Kollin Elderts at a fast
food restaurant in November 2011.

To this date, Plaintiff-

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Appellee State of Hawai#i (the State) has already been afforded
two full opportunities in its quest to convict Deedy of murder.
The result was an acquittal of the charged offense.

The response

of the State is to change the charge and attempt to convict him
of manslaughter, despite averring to the trial court in two
separate trials that the evidence does not support a manslaughter
conviction.

Moreover, the prosecution admits the evidence will

be the same at the third trial.

This is patently unfair, and I

cannot abide by the Majority’s decision permitting the State to
try Deedy for a third time under these circumstances.

Because of

this, I respectfully dissent.
At the first trial, which lasted for twenty-three days,
the jury was instructed solely on the charged offenses per the
parties’ request, and was unable to return a verdict.

The

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) found manifest
necessity to declare a mistrial.
The second trial, held a year later, spanned sixteen
days.

The State’s evidence at the second trial was essentially

the same as the evidence that it had presented at the first
trial.

Over the State’s objection, the jury was instructed on

not only the charged offenses, but also numerous lesser included
offenses, including reckless manslaughter.

Ultimately, the jury

acquitted Deedy on the charge of murder in the second degree, but
was unable to reach a verdict on the included offenses.
2

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

After successfully defending his case at two full jury
trials, Deedy filed several motions to dismiss the charges
against him, including a motion to dismiss pursuant to State v.
Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 647 P.2d 705 (1982).
denied all of Deedy’s dismissal motions.

The circuit court
On appeal, the Majority

affirms the circuit court’s decision, and thereby bequeaths upon
the State a third opportunity to convict Deedy of an offense, but
this time for an offense that was never charged.
Respectfully, I disagree with the Majority insofar as I
believe that the State should not be permitted to retry Deedy’s
case for two reasons.

First, based upon the equitable doctrine

of judicial estoppel, the State is precluded from retrying
Deedy’s case.

Second, while a trial court’s application of the

factors delineated in Moriwake is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion, the circuit court misinterpreted and misapplied most
of the Moriwake factors to the facts in the present case.

In

doing so, the circuit court “disregarded rules or principles of
law . . . to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.”
State v. Rapozo, 123 Hawai#i 329, 336, 235 P.3d 325, 332 (2010)
(quoting State v. Oughterson, 99 Hawai#i 244, 253, 54 P.3d 415,
424 (2002)).

Consequently, in my view, the circuit court abused

its discretion in denying Deedy’s motion to dismiss under State
v. Moriwake.

3

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Accordingly, I dissent.
I.
A.

DISCUSSION

The State is estopped from retrying Deedy on the offense of
reckless manslaughter.
The doctrine of judicial estoppel, also referred to as

equitable estoppel, is “grounded in the equitable principle that
one should not be permitted to take a position inconsistent with
a previous position if the result is to harm another.”

Univ. of

Haw. Prof’l Assembly ex. rel. Daeufer v. Univ. of Haw., 66 Haw.
214, 221, 659 P.2d 720, 725 (1983) (hereinafter “University”).
Put differently, judicial estoppel establishes that
[a] party will not be permitted to maintain
inconsistent positions or to take a position in regard
to a matter which is directly contrary to, or
inconsistent with, one previously assumed by him, at
least where he had, or was chargeable with, full
knowledge of the facts, and another will be prejudiced
by his action.

Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai#i 91, 124, 969 P.2d 1209, 1242 (1998)
(brackets in original) (quoting Rosa v. CWJ Contractors, Ltd., 4
Haw. App. 210, 218, 664 P.2d 745, 751 (1983)).
colloquial terms:

In more

“This doctrine prevents parties from ‘playing

“fast and loose” with the court or blowing “hot and cold” during
the course of litigation.’”

Id. (quoting Rosa, 4 Haw. App. at

219, 664 P.2d at 751).
At different stages in this case, the State has adopted
conflicting positions as to whether there was a rational basis in
the evidence to support a conviction for reckless manslaughter.
4

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

During the settling of jury instructions in the first trial, the
circuit court observed that both parties had “asked that a
manslaughter instruction not be given,” and ruled that there was
no evidence to support a reckless manslaughter instruction.

The

State apparently agreed with the circuit court’s ruling, as it
did not object or otherwise express any disagreement.

Taken

together, the State’s request that a reckless manslaughter
instruction not be given and its acquiescence to the circuit
court’s ruling reflect that at the first trial, the State’s
position was that there was no rational basis in the evidence to
support a conviction of reckless manslaughter.

See State v.

Flores, 131 Hawai#i 43, 51, 314 P.3d 120, 128 (2013) (“[J]ury
instructions on lesser-included offenses must be given where
there is a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict
acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting
the defendant of the included offense.”).
At the second trial, Deedy again asked that a reckless
manslaughter instruction not be given because, inter alia:
[T]here will be no rational basis in the evidence to
give a reckless manslaughter jury instruction, just as
there was no basis in the evidence at the first trial
to do so. The evidence regarding Mr. Deedy’s state of
mind will not differ at the second trial in any
material way from the evidence that the parties
adduced at the first trial on that topic. That
evidence uniformly supports only one conclusion with
regard to whether Mr. Deedy’s state of mind was
intentional and knowing on the one hand, or reckless
on the other . . . .

5

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

In its memorandum in response to Deedy’s request, the State
asserted:
In the first trial, neither the State nor the
defense requested the lesser-included Manslaughter
instruction, and there was no objection from either
side to this Court’s decision not to provide that
alternative instruction. This Court made its original
decision based on the evidence presented in the first
trial, and based on the appropriate standard at the
time. The State maintains its same position, that
should the evidence in this retrial mirror the
evidence in the first, then there is no rational basis
for giving the instruction on the lesser-included
offense of Manslaughter.

(Emphasis added.)

Additionally, during the settling of jury

instructions, the State reiterated:

“With regards to rational

basis, just as in last year, we maintain that same position that
there’s not a rational basis in the evidence to support the
giving of the manslaughter instruction.”

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, the State unambiguously argued during
the first and second trials that there was no rational basis in
the evidence to support a conviction of reckless manslaughter.
Yet, in defense of its opportunity to try the case a third time,
the State completely flipped its position, and argued that there
is a rational basis in the evidence to support a conviction of
reckless manslaughter.

At the hearing on Deedy’s motions to

dismiss, the State acknowledged that for the most part, similar
evidence was presented at the first and second trials, and that
the evidence in the third trial would closely resemble that which
was presented in the first two trials, albeit with a different
6

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

emphasis.

However, the State then asserted:
Now, obviously the jurors think that there was
reckless conduct involved here, and if you look at the
circumstances of the whole event, it’s easy to see
where that recklessness comes in, and therefore, the
presentation of evidence, whether it will be the same
or different, will definitely have a different
emphasis.
The State’s position was, as the Court knows and
as the Defense has emphasized, that this was
intentional conduct. There was no way we wanted to
elicit any evidence to show that it was reckless
conduct. However, the Court is well aware of the
state of the evidence and is aware that there are a
myriad [of] things that happened during that whole
transaction at McDonald’s that could support a
Reckless charge.

(Emphases added.)
The foregoing illustrates that the State’s assertion
that Deedy may be retried on the offense of reckless manslaughter
rests on a position that the State has “take[n] . . . in regard
to a matter which is directly contrary to, or inconsistent with,
one previously assumed by [the State], at least where [it] had,
or was chargeable with, full knowledge of the facts[.]”

Roxas,

89 Hawai#i at 124, 969 P.2d at 1242 (quoting Rosa, 4 Haw. App. at
218, 664 P.2d at 751).

Should the State’s argument be accepted,

“the result [would be] to harm another,” as Deedy would be
required to endure the insurmountable physical and emotional
expense of having to defend his case for a third time at trial.
University, 66 Haw. at 221, 659 P.2d at 725.
“Estoppel by any name is based primarily on
considerations of justice and fair play.”
7

Id. at 222, 659 P.2d

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

at 726.

Both of these values would be offended if the State is

afforded a third opportunity to try Deedy for an offense that the
State unequivocally asserted was without a rational basis in the
evidence not once, but twice before.

Therefore, in my view, the

State is estopped from now contending that there is a rational
basis in the evidence to support a conviction for reckless
manslaughter.

It follows that the State is also estopped from

retrying Deedy for a third time.
Based on these reasons alone, I would hold that the
State should not be permitted to try Deedy for a third time.
However, as will be discussed in section I.B, infra, I also
believe that Deedy should not be retried for a third time because
most of the factors contemplated in State v. Moriwake weigh
against retrial.
B.

Because the circuit court misinterpreted and misapplied
several of the Moriwake factors to the facts of the present
case, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
Deedy’s Moriwake motion to dismiss.
In Moriwake, this court held that a trial court may

“dismiss[] an indictment with prejudice following the declaration
of one or more mistrials because of genuinely deadlocked juries,
even though the defendant’s constitutional rights are not yet
implicated.”

65 Haw. at 55, 647 P.2d at 712.

When ascertaining

whether to dismiss an indictment in such circumstances, the trial
court’s task, at its core, is to “balanc[e] the interest of the
8

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

state against fundamental fairness to a defendant with the added
ingredient of the orderly functioning of the court system.”

Id.

at 56, 647 P.2d at 712 (quoting State v. Braunsdorf, 297 N.W.2d
808, 817 (Wis. 1980) (Day, J., dissenting)).

In engaging in this

balance:
The factors which the trial court should
consider . . . include the following: (1) the
severity of the offense charged; (2) the number of
prior mistrials and the circumstances of the jury
deliberation therein, so far as is known; (3) the
character of prior trials in terms of length,
complexity and similarity of evidence presented; (4)
the likelihood of any substantial difference in a
subsequent trial, if allowed; (5) the trial court’s
own evaluation of relative case strength; and (6) the
professional conduct and diligence of respective
counsel, particularly that of the prosecuting
attorney.

Id. at 56-57, 647 P.2d at 712-13.
I agree with the Majority that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in ruling that the first factor, the
severity of the offense charged, weighs in favor of retrial.
Majority at 34-35.

However, “[n]othing in Moriwake indicates

that all factors must be given equal weight or that certain
factors must be given more weight than others.”
120 Hawai#i 265, 280, 204 P.3d 484, 499 (2009).

State v. Hinton,
Therefore,

although I concur that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that one of the Moriwake factors favors
retrial, I believe that all of the other factors, when correctly
analyzed in the context of our precedent and the key principles

9

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

upon which Moriwake itself was based, weigh in favor of
dismissal.
1.

Number of mistrials and circumstances of the jury
deliberations therein

With respect to the second Moriwake factor, the circuit
court observed that:

(1) there were two mistrials; (2) the jury

at the first trial was only instructed on the charged offense,
whereas the jury at the second trial was instructed on the
charged offense, as well as numerous lesser included offenses,
including reckless manslaughter; (3) at both trials, the jury was
required to consider the defenses of self-defense and defense of
others; (4) the jury communications in the first trial pertained
to self-defense, whereas the jury communications in the second
trial concerned “recklessness” and the timing of its
applicability; and (5) “[t]he final jury splits reportedly were 8
to 4 for acquittal and 7 to 5 for acquittal” in the first and
second trials, respectively.

Overall, the circuit court ruled

that this factor is neutral because “[i]t is difficult to discern
from communications precisely how jury deliberations proceeded,”
and because of the “legal and factual complexity of this case and
the fact that a retrial will focus solely upon a reckless state
of mind.”
According to the Majority, the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion in ruling that this factor is neutral for
10

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

two reasons.

First, the Majority, like the circuit court,

highlights that the jury was required to consider the included
offenses of manslaughter and assault in the second trial only.
Majority at 36-37.

To the Majority, because Deedy is being tried

for reckless manslaughter for only the second time, albeit in the
third trial, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
ruling that this factor does not necessarily favor dismissal.
See Majority at 36-37.
With due respect, I disagree.

In my view, the fact

that the jury was only required to consider reckless manslaughter
as a lesser included offense in the second trial is irrelevant to
the role that this factor plays in “balancing the interest of the
state against fundamental fairness to a defendant.”

Moriwake, 65

Haw. at 56, 647 P.2d at 712 (quoting Braunsdorf, 297 N.W.2d at
817 (Day, J., dissenting)).

The purpose in requiring courts to

contemplate the number of prior mistrials is to ensure that
courts consider how many chances the State has had to pursue a
conviction, and has failed to achieve said outcome.

Where the

State has been given more chances to convict a defendant and has
consistently been unable to do so, as indicated by a greater
number of mistrials, this factor should weigh heavily in favor of
dismissal.
Moreover, from my perspective, which offenses were

11

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

submitted to the jury for consideration at each prior trial
relates to the strategies and tactical considerations that the
parties utilized within the State’s previous opportunities to
obtain a conviction.

Whether the same offenses were submitted to

the jury in the prior mistrials has no bearing on the number of
chances that the State has been afforded to obtain a guilty
verdict.

Therefore, I believe that the circuit court did not

properly consider the number of prior mistrials in its analysis
of the second Moriwake factor, insofar as the circuit court
focused on the immaterial fact that the jury was only instructed
on reckless manslaughter in the second trial.
Second, the Majority posits that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in ruling that this factor is neutral
because the circuit court apparently inferred that “the jury
communications from the second jury evince a degree of confusion
about the recklessness state of mind and its application.”
Majority at 37.

Based upon the circuit court’s concern for the

jury’s confusion, as well as its consideration of “the legal and
factual complexity of the case and that a retrial will focus
solely upon a reckless state of mind,” the Majority holds that
the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in “weighing this
factor as ‘neutral’ in its Moriwake analysis.”
39.
12

Majority at 38-

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

The Majority’s holding on this point effectively
establishes that where jury communications during a prior
mistrial suggest that the jury might have been confused about the
law or its application, the second Moriwake factor may weigh in
favor of retrial.

See Majority at 38-39.

Such a holding,

however, will unfairly provide the State with extraneous and
undeserved opportunities to retry its cases after failing to
secure a conviction on its initial attempts.1
The State, as the party with the burden of proof in
criminal cases, bears the responsibility of presenting its
1

The Majority suggests that my analysis on the second Moriwake factor,
which concerns why jury confusion regarding the law or its application to the
facts should not push the second Moriwake factor in favor of retrial, is
inconsistent with Hinton. Majority at 38 n.12. According to the Majority, in
Hinton, we “approved consideration of jury communications evincing confusion
under Moriwake’s second factor.” Majority at 38 n.12.
Respectfully, I believe that the Majority reads our decision in Hinton
too broadly. In Hinton, the trial court ruled that the second Moriwake factor
weighed in favor of retrial because the jury was “evenly split” throughout
deliberations, and because “[t]he jury did seem to have problems following the
evidence.” 120 Hawai#i at 271, 204 P.3d at 490. The Intermediate Court of
Appeals (ICA) affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held that “there is a
basis for concluding that another jury could reach a verdict even if the
evidence is essentially the same” due, in part, to the fact “that the jury
appeared confused by the testimony even though the trial was not particularly
complex.” Id. at 276, 204 P.3d at 495 (emphasis added). On certiorari, we
agreed with the trial court and the ICA that the second Moriwake factor
weighed in favor of retrial because although the case against Hinton was not
particularly complicated, the jury seemed confused about the testimony
presented at trial. Id. at 278-79, 204 P.3d at 497-978.
Therefore, in Hinton, we did not hold that jury confusion concerning the
relevant law or its application to the facts may tip the second Moriwake
factor in favor of retrial. Rather, in Hinton, we held that based on the
facts in that case–-where the jury had difficulty following the evidence and
testimony being presented at trial despite the fact that the case was not
complex--the second Moriwake factor weighed in favor of retrial because under
those circumstances, a different jury could have plausibly arrived at a
different outcome even if it were presented with the same evidence as the
first jury. 120 Hawai#i at 278-79, 204 P.3d at 497-98. Consequently, I do
not believe that my analysis in section I.B.1 conflicts with Hinton.

13

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

evidence and legal theories clearly, and in a manner which the
jury will comprehend.

See State v. Cuevas, 53 Haw. 110, 113, 488

P.2d 322, 324 (1971) (“Under our legal system, the burden is
always upon the prosecution to establish every element of crime
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, never upon the accused to
disprove the existence of any necessary element.”).

Should the

State fail to obtain a conviction due to its unclear presentation
of the facts or the means by which the relevant law applies to
the facts, or other strategic decisions, the State should bear
the consequences of its own actions.

The Majority’s holding,

however, may allow the State to avoid some of the repercussions
of its own choices.

Under the Majority’s interpretation of the

second Moriwake factor, whenever jury communications indicate
confusion, the State may be afforded another opportunity to retry
the case after learning precisely where its presentation and
strategic decisions may have fallen short in the previous trial.2

2

I agree with the Majority that the State is not responsible for
correctly instructing the jury on the law to which the facts must be applied.
Majority at 39 n.13; see State v. Adviento, 132 Hawai#i 123, 137, 319 P.3d
1131, 1145 (2014) (“[I]t is the trial judge’s duty to insure that the jury
instructions cogently explain the law applicable to the facts of the case and
that the jury has proper guidance in its consideration of the issues before
it.” (bracket in original) (quoting State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai#i 195, 205,
58 P.3d 1242, 1252 (2002)). However, the fact remains that the State, not the
trial court, is the party that bears the burden of proof in criminal
prosecutions. See Cuevas, 53 Haw. at 113, 488 P.2d at 324. Accordingly, even
if the trial court correctly instructs the jury on the applicable law, the
State is still required to present its evidence and its theory of the case in
a manner that is clear and comprehensible to the jury. Consequently, if the
State’s presentation confuses the jury with respect to its theory of how the
(continued...)

14

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

The injustice that results from such an interpretation
of the second Moriwake factor is evident in this case.

Here, in

both prior mistrials, the State argued that a reckless
manslaughter instruction should not be given.

Though the circuit

court instructed the jury on reckless manslaughter over the
State’s objection at the second trial, the State deliberately and
strategically chose not to focus on whether Deedy could be
convicted of reckless manslaughter.

Rather, the State

concentrated its efforts on arguing that Deedy was guilty of
murder in the second degree.

Indeed, the State conceded that it

had adopted such a strategy when, during the hearing on Deedy’s
motions to dismiss, the State stated that at the second trial,
“[t]he State’s position was, as the Court knows and as the
Defense has emphasized, that this was intentional conduct.

There

was no way we wanted to elicit any evidence to show that it was
reckless conduct.”

(Emphasis added.)

Yet, the Majority now holds that because the jury was
apparently confused about the recklessness state of mind and its
application, the second Moriwake factor could weigh in favor of
retrial.

As a result, the State is given an opportunity to

2
(...continued)
law applies to facts established by the evidence adduced at trial to support a
verdict in the State’s favor, the State must accept the consequences of its
own actions and decisions.

15

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

abandon its previous trial strategy, which did not focus on the
recklessness state of mind and its applicability to the facts,
and take a second bite at the apple.

Put differently, the

Majority’s interpretation of the second Moriwake factor places a
thumb on the scale in favor of the State in the context of an
analytical framework that strives to objectively balance the
State’s “strong interest in punishing criminal conduct” with the
interest of “ensuring fairness to defendants in judicial
proceedings.”

Moriwake, 65 Haw. at 56, 647 P.2d at 712 (quoting

Braunsdorf, 297 N.W.2d at 817 (Day, J., dissenting)).
interpretation cannot stand.

This

In my view, the circuit court

“disregarded [the] . . . principles of law,” Rapozo, 123 Hawai#i
at 336, 235 P.3d at 332 (quoting Oughterson, 99 Hawai#i at 253,
54 P.3d at 424), inasmuch as it considered the jury’s confusion
regarding recklessness in its analysis of the second Moriwake
factor.
The Majority vastly misconstrues the foregoing
discussion as “fault[ing] the State’s trial strategy of focusing
its efforts upon obtaining a murder conviction rather than a
manslaughter conviction.”

Majority at 43 n.17.

Any reading of

my dissent makes clear that my analysis of the second Moriwake
factor does not, in any way, fault or otherwise criticize the
State’s decision to charge Deedy with the offense of murder in
16

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

the second degree (and the related firearms offense), or the
State’s decision to, in the first two trials, tailor its trial
strategy towards securing a conviction on the charged offense.
On the contrary, I believe that the State was well within its
right to charge Deedy as it saw fit, and to try its case in the
manner of its choosing and preference.

The decisions that the

State made in the course of charging and trying Deedy in the
first two trials are not the source of my concern.
Rather, what gives me pause is that under the
Majority’s interpretation of the second Moriwake factor, the
State may be allowed to completely change its approach to trying
a criminal defendant on the offenses that it originally chose not
to charge him or her with, after its previous decisions did not
result in a unanimous guilty verdict, due possibly in part to the
jury’s confusion regarding the State’s theory of the case.

I do

not believe that the jury’s confusion regarding the State’s
theory of the case, as reflected in their deliberations, should
be a potential basis for giving the State a free do-over, in
which the State may change its mind and adopt a brand new trial
strategy after it was unsuccessful in its previous attempts to
secure a unanimous verdict against the defendant.3
3

In footnote 17, the Majority states that “the State’s trial strategy did
not preclude the jury from consideration of reckless manslaughter at the
(continued...)

17

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

A proper application of the second Moriwake factor
indicates that rather than being neutral, this factor weighs
against retrial.

In this case, there were two mistrials.

The

jury deliberated for five and a half days in the first trial.
In the second trial, the jury deliberated for six and a half
days.

The jury in the first trial could not reach a verdict on

the original charge, whereas the jury in the second trial
acquitted Deedy of the original charge but could not reach a
verdict on the included offenses and defenses.

The jurors were

split in favor of the defendant in both trials; the jurors were
eight to four for acquittal in the first trial and seven to five
for acquittal in the second trial.
Taken together, the foregoing facts illustrate that the
State has already had two opportunities to pursue a guilty
verdict in Deedy’s case, and that the juries in both trials
engaged in thoughtful deliberations.

Therefore, to the extent

that “serious consideration [ought to] be given to dismissing an
indictment with prejudice after a second hung jury mistrial,”
Moriwake, 65 Haw. at 57, 647 P.2d at 713, and that retrying the
case before a different jury is unlikely to result in a different

3

(...continued)
second trial.” Majority at 43 n.17. I am not certain as to the purpose
behind the Majority’s statement, as I have not stated, nor do I believe, that
the jury was precluded from considering the offense of reckless manslaughter
at the second trial.

18

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

outcome, the second Moriwake factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
2.

Character of prior trials in terms of length,
complexity, and similarity of evidence presented

Addressing the third Moriwake factor, the circuit court
considered that the first trial spanned twenty-three days, and
that the second trial lasted for sixteen days.

The circuit court

also compared the evidence, legal theories, and witness testimony
between the two trials:
While many of the same witnesses and the same
surveillance tape were presented at both trials, the
second trial’s evidence appeared to place greater
emphasis upon the Defendant’s alleged state of
intoxication and the State’s theory that the deceased
already had sustained a gunshot wound before he and
the Defendant fell to the restaurant floor. The
Defendant’s testimony remained essentially similar as
to his conduct and his state of mind; one may argue
that Defendant’s statements could be construed to
support the elements of murder in the second degree.
However, Defendant argued that his actions were
justified. In both trials, the State argued for
conviction as charged.

(Emphases added.)

Furthermore, the circuit court observed that

both trials were legally and factually complicated, and that
although “the State had one opportunity to argue for an included
manslaughter conviction . . . it would have been difficult and
contradictory to pursue and argue manslaughter where it believed
it could prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Based on these

facts, the circuit court concluded that the third Moriwake factor
weighs in favor of retrial.
The Majority holds that the circuit court did not abuse
19

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

its discretion in ruling that the third Moriwake factor weighs in
favor of retrial because:

(1) “the length of previous trials,

considered in and of itself, is not a strong indicator of whether
the third Moriwake factor favors or disfavors a retrial”; (2) the
circuit court “duly considered” the differences between the legal
theories, evidence, and witness testimony presented at both
trials; and (3) the circuit court determined that the previous
trials were factually and legally complex.

Majority at 39-44.

I do not believe that the circuit court applied the
third Moriwake factor correctly.

Specifically, I do not think

the circuit court “duly considered” the differences between the
legal theories, evidence, and witness testimony presented at both
of the previous trials.

See Majority at 43.

According to the

circuit court, and the Majority appears to agree, the evidence
presented at both trials was sufficiently dissimilar to tip this
“ingredient” in the third Moriwake factor in favor of retrial
because the State placed “greater emphasis” upon Deedy’s state of
intoxication and the State’s theory that the victim had already
been shot before he and Deedy fell to the ground.

Majority at

42-43.
However, the “similarity of the evidence” component of
the third Moriwake factor does not relate to whether the same
evidence was emphasized in different ways between the previous
20

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

trials.

The analysis in this part of the third Moriwake factor

centers upon the similarity of the evidence, legal theories, and
witness testimony between the prior trials, not upon the
similarity of the means by which the parties highlighted or
emphasized the evidence to support their respective positions.
See State v. Deguair, 136 Hawai#i 71, 88, 358 P.3d 43, 60 (2015)
(“A comparison between the evidence presented, witnesses
testifying, and legal theories argued in each trial are relevant
to the third Moriwake factor.” (emphasis added)).

Accordingly,

inasmuch as the circuit court incorrectly equated differing
emphases upon the evidence with dissimilarities in the evidence
itself, the circuit court “disregarded [the] . . . principles of
law,” Rapozo, 123 Hawai#i at 336, 235 P.3d at 332 (quoting
Oughterson, 99 Hawai#i at 253, 54 P.3d at 424), and misconstrued
this component of the third Moriwake factor.

On this basis

alone, I would hold that the circuit court abused its discretion
in ruling that the third Moriwake factor favors retrial.4
4

The Majority states that my position on this point “misapprehends the
circuit court’s analysis” because the circuit court’s “allusion to differing
emphases in the two trials referred to differences in the legal theories that
the State presented, which our precedents require a court to account for when
analyzing the third Moriwake factor.” Majority at 42-43 n.16.
With due respect, I disagree with the Majority’s characterization of the
circuit court’s discussion on the third Moriwake factor. The text of the
circuit court’s written order denying Deedy’s motion to dismiss pursuant to
Moriwake illustrates that the circuit court, in analyzing the third Moriwake
factor, acknowledged that the State utilized the same legal theories between
the first and second trials, inasmuch the State argued, on both occasions,
that Deedy should be convicted as charged. The circuit court did not, as the
(continued...)

21

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Moreover, when correctly applied, the third Moriwake
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

The evidence presented at

the first trial was substantially identical to the evidence
presented at the second trial.

The circuit court noted that

“many of the same witnesses and the same surveillance tape were
presented at both trials,” and that Deedy’s “testimony remained
essentially similar as to his conduct and his state of mind.”
Additionally, the parties primarily relied upon the
same legal theories in both trials.

In particular, the circuit

court observed that in both trials, “the State argued for
conviction as charged,” whereas Deedy relied upon a theory of
self-defense.

That the State had an opportunity to argue for a

manslaughter conviction at the second trial, but chose to forego
it and instead fixate its efforts on pursuing a murder
conviction, is of no relevance to this analysis.
succinctly stated in his opening brief:

As Deedy

“The State’s strategic

4
(...continued)
Majority contends, find that the State emphasized or relied upon different
legal theories between the first two trials. By contrast, the circuit court
clearly considered that between the first and second trials, the State
presented the same evidence but emphasized different facts. In particular,
the circuit court observed that in the second trial, the State “place[d]
greater emphasis” on Deedy’s state of intoxication, and the State’s factual
theory that the deceased sustained a gunshot wound before he and Deedy had
fallen to the ground.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s analysis of the third Moriwake factor
did not refer to the “differences in the legal theories that the State
presented.” See Majority at 43 n.16. Rather, the text in the circuit court’s
order supports that when evalating the third Moriwake factor, the circuit
court improperly conflated placing differing emphases on the same evidence
with the presentation of different evidence.

22

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

predilections . . . are not the focus of Moriwake’s third
factor.”5
Because the evidence presented, the witnesses who
testified, and the legal theories advanced at both of Deedy’s
previous trials were vastly similar, this part of the third
Moriwake factor significantly tips it in favor of dismissal.
Furthermore, the remaining two components of the third
Moriwake factor support dismissal.

Both of Deedy’s previous

trials were legally and factually complex.

And, both trials were

quite long--the first trial lasted for twenty-three days, and the
second trial lasted for sixteen days.

Considering “the length of

the previous trials . . . in the context of the complexity of the
case,” Majority at 40, these facts support dismissal because they
illustrate that the State has been afforded two extensive

5

Analogous to my remark on the matter in section I.B.1, my comment upon
the State’s strategic decisions in my analysis of the third Moriwake factor
does not, in any way, “fault[] the State’s trial strategy of focusing its
efforts upon obtaining a murder conviction rather than a manslaughter
conviction.” Majority at 43 n.17. Rather, I believe that the circuit court
abused its discretion to the extent that, in its evaluation of the third
Moriwake factor, the circuit court improperly considered that the State only
“had one opportunity to argue for an included manslaughter conviction” between
the two trials because “[a]ccording to the State, it would have been difficult
and contradictory to pursue and argue manslaughter where it believed it could
prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.” In my view, the fact that the State
believed that “it would have been difficult and contradictory to pursue and
argue manslaughter where it believed it could prove murder beyond a reasonable
doubt,” and therefore did not argue for a manslaughter conviction at the
second trial, is completely irrelevant to the length of the prior mistrials,
the complexity of the case, and/or the similarity of the evidence between the
previous trials. Accordingly, I would hold that the circuit court abused its
discretion by considering a wholly irrelevant fact in its analysis of the
third Moriwake factor.

23

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

opportunities to present the same evidence and arguments in
support of its position regarding the complex factual and legal
issues before a jury, and receive a decision based thereupon.
The Majority suggests that if it were to conclude that
the length of the prior trials and the complexity of the case
weigh in favor of dismissal in the present case, this court would
establish precedent whereby there it is more likely that cases
involving higher stakes--those involving more serious charges, or
a greater number of charged offenses, or multiple defendants-will be dismissed.

Majority at 41-42.

However, the Majority’s

extrapolation of the consequences that could result from my
analysis concerning the third Moriwake factor rests upon a flawed
factual assumption:

that cases involving more serious charges,

or those involving numerous defendants or multiple charges,
necessarily result in longer and/or more complicated trials.

I

do not believe that criminal cases can be characterized in such a
linear fashion.

The length and complexity of criminal trials

ultimately depend on a vast number of factors, which will
inevitably vary from case-to-case depending on each case’s unique
facts and circumstances.

Accordingly, from my perspective, the

Majority’s justification for its holding on this point is
unpersuasive.
To conclude, I would hold that the circuit court abused
24

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

its discretion in ruling that the third Moriwake factor weighs in
favor of retrial.

The circuit court fundamentally misapplied

this factor when it determined that placing differing emphases on
the same evidence is tantamount to presenting different evidence.
And, properly applied, the third Moriwake factor weighs in favor
of dismissal.

Here, the State has had two protracted

opportunities to present the same evidence, legal theories, and
witness testimony to support it position on the complicated
issues before the jury in each trial, and receive a decision
based thereon.
3.

Likelihood of any substantial difference in a
subsequent trial, if allowed

The circuit court ruled that the fourth Moriwake factor
weighs in favor of retrial because “the prosecution will focus
exclusively upon a reckless state of mind,” such that the
“evidentiary emphasis and argument during [the] third trial will
differ from what they were when the focus was the charged
offense” in the first two trials.
On appeal, Deedy argues that this factor weighs in
favor of dismissal because the State intends to rely upon the
same evidence that it had presented at the first two trials.
Majority rejects this argument, stating:
Deedy places inordinate emphasis on his claim that the
evidence at a third trial will not be substantially
different from that introduced at the first and second

25

The

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

trials. While “[t]his court has indicated that
whether the evidence submitted in a subsequent trial
would be substantially different from prior trials is
relevant” in evaluating the fourth Moriwake factor,
this court has never held that it is dispositive as to
whether this factor favors retrial. Deguair, 136
Hawai#i 89, 358 P.3d at 61.
The primary focus of this factor is the
likelihood of any substantial difference in a
subsequent trial, which includes not only the evidence
presented, but also the theory of guilt, the
applicable defenses, and the likelihood of a verdict
as opposed to a hung jury. See, e.g., id. (noting
that not only was evidence to be offered at a third
trial substantially the same as the second trial, it
was also not likely that there would be a substantial
difference in the result of a third trial).

Majority at 45-46 (brackets in original) (emphases added).
Indeed, our case law has not established that the
similarity of the evidence presented between the subsequent trial
and the previous trials is dispositive of whether this Moriwake
factor weighs in favor of dismissal or retrial.

Nonetheless, the

cases upon which the Majority relies illustrate that this court
has previously given heavy consideration to “whether the evidence
submitted in a subsequent trial would be substantially different
from prior trials,” and if so, whether such evidence would likely
make a difference on retrial.

Deguair, 136 Hawai#i at 89, 358

P.3d at 61 (holding that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that the fourth Moriwake factor weighed in
favor of dismissal because the new evidence that the State sought
to offer at the third trial “would not make a difference” such
that “the evidence in the third trial would be substantially the

26

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

same as the second trial”); Hinton, 120 Hawai#i at 279, 204 P.3d
at 498 (affirming the ICA’s determination that the circuit court
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the fourth
Moriwake factor weighed against retrial because “the evidence
submitted in a subsequent trial, if allowed, ‘would be
substantially similar . . . [and] would not differ all that
much’”).

Neither Deguair nor Hinton support, as the Majority

posits, that courts ought to consider “the theory of guilt, the
applicable defenses, and the likelihood of a verdict as opposed
to a hung jury” when analyzing the fourth Moriwake factor.

See

Deguair, 136 Hawai#i at 89, 358 P.3d at 61, Hinton, 120 Hawai#i at
279, 204 P.3d at 498; Majority at 46.
Therefore, I do not believe that Deedy inordinately
emphasized the fact that the evidence at the third trial will be
the same as the evidence that was presented in the first two
trials.

Consonant with Moriwake and its progeny, Deedy correctly

contended that the fourth Moriwake factor weighs in favor of
dismissal because the State has not indicated that it will
present evidence materially different from that which it had
utilized at the first two trials.

Though the State intends to

cast the evidence in a different light in the third trial, its
plan to shift its trial strategy has no bearing upon the fact to
which this court has previously given substantial weight in
27

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

analyzing the fourth Moriwake factor:

that “the evidence in the

third trial would be substantially the same as the second trial.”
Deguair, 136 Hawai#i at 89, 358 P.3d at 61.
In sum, the circuit court’s analysis of the fourth
Moriwake factor focused solely upon “the differing emphasis of
the prosecution’s case, as well as the manner in which the
evidence will be characterized” in the third trial.
46.

Majority at

The circuit court, however, did not address, in any way

whatsoever, whether the evidence presented at the third trial
would be similar to that which was presented at the first two
trials.

This is a consideration that this court has previously

accorded significant weight in examining the fourth Moriwake
factor.

Accordingly, the circuit court “disregarded [the] . . .

principles of law” by applying the fourth Moriwake factor in a
manner that is inconsistent with this court’s case law.

Rapozo,

123 Hawai#i at 336, 235 P.3d at 332 (quoting Oughterson, 99
Hawai#i at 253, 54 P.3d at 424).

As such, the circuit court

abused its discretion in determining that the fourth Moriwake
factor weighs in favor of retrial.
4.

Trial court’s evaluation of relative case strength

The circuit court ruled that the fifth Moriwake factor
weighs in favor of retrial because “[t]here was sufficient
evidence to convict the Defendant, and there was sufficient
28

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

evidence to acquit the Defendant, depending upon who and what a
jury elected to believe.”

The Majority holds that the circuit

court did not abuse its discretion in arriving at the
aforementioned conclusion because “[t]here is no indication in
the record to refute the circuit court’s determination that the
evidence was sufficiently strong to support a conviction on
retrial.”

Majority at 48.
I do not dispute that arguably, the evidence in the

present case could have supported either Deedy’s conviction or
acquittal.

However, from my perspective, the circuit court

overlooked a key consideration that is probative of the strength
of the State’s case, and supports that the fifth Moriwake factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence could have
supported either Deedy’s conviction or acquittal, the salient
fact remains that the State must obtain a unanimous guilty
verdict to convict Deedy of any offense stemming out of the
incident that took place at the fast food restaurant in 2011.
State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai#i 1, 30, 928 P.2d 843, 872 (1996)
(“[T]he right of an accused to a unanimous verdict in a criminal
prosecution, tried before a jury in a court of this state, is
guaranteed by article I, sections 5 and 14 of the Hawai#i
Constitution.”).

The State had two fair chances to obtain a
29

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

unanimous guilty verdict.

The State failed both times.

The jury

could not reach a verdict on the charged offense at the first
trial.

At the second trial, the jury acquitted Deedy on the

charge of murder, and could not reach a verdict on the included
offenses.

That the State presented the same evidence to a jury

twice before, and was unsuccessful in both efforts to obtain a
unanimous guilty verdict, suggests that the State’s case was
clearly not strong enough to support a conviction on retrial,
inasmuch as Deedy was acquitted of the charged offense at the
second trial.
Accordingly, I believe that the circuit court neglected
a conspicuous and pertinent fact that bore upon the relative
strength of the State’s case when it analyzed the fifth Moriwake
factor.

In doing so, the circuit court abused its discretion in

ruling that this factor weighs in favor of retrial.
5.

Professional conduct and diligence of respective
counsel, particularly that of the prosecuting
attorney

The circuit court determined that the sixth Moriwake
factor “favors retrial” to the extent that “[c]ounsel acted with
diligence and did the best job they could do, as they defined
it.”

In affirming the circuit court’s ruling, the Majority

posits:

“The quality of counsel’s professional conduct and the

level of their diligence could weigh either in favor or against
30

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

retrial depending on the circumstances and specific facts of the
case, including the result of the evaluation of other relevant
Moriwake factors.”

Majority at 50.

To the Majority, because the

circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
there was a substantial likelihood that the third trial would
have a different outcome, the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that the sixth Moriwake factor weighs in
favor of retrial.

Majority at 50-51.

I do not agree with the Majority’s holding on this
point for two reasons.

First, I do not believe that “[t]he

quality of counsel’s professional conduct and the level of their
diligence could weigh either in favor or against retrial
depending on the circumstances and specific facts of the case.”
Majority at 50.

Rather, the sixth Moriwake factor simply

requires courts to consider whether a different outcome would
have been reached had the attorneys been more skilled or
diligent.

Consonant with this view, this court has consistently

held that the sixth Moriwake factor weighs in favor of dismissal
where counsel have performed competently and diligently.

See

Hinton, 120 Hawai#i at 280, 204 P.3d at 499 (affirming that the
circuit court correctly ruled that the sixth Moriwake factor
weighed against retrial “inasmuch as the attorneys for both
parties ‘did a good job’”); Deguair, 136 Hawai#i at 90, 358 P.3d
31

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

at 62 (declining to disturb the circuit court’s ruling that the
sixth Moriwake factor weighed “strongly against a retrial”
because the prosecutor’s performance was of unparalleled
excellence, diligence, and professionalism).

The Majority’s

holding on this point over-complicates the straight-forward
inquiry that lies at the heart of the sixth Moriwake factor.
Second, I disagree with the Majority’s holding
concerning the sixth Moriwake factor to the extent that, as
discussed in section I.B.3, supra, I believe that the result in
the third trial is not substantially likely to be materially
different from the outcome in the previous two trials.
The sixth Moriwake factor weighs against retrial.
Here, both the prosecutor and defense counsel were and are
profoundly well-regarded in the legal community.

At the hearing

on Deedy’s motions to dismiss, the circuit court observed that
“[c]ounsel acted with diligence and did the best job they could
as they defined it.”

The circuit court reiterated its sentiments

regarding counsels’ professional conduct and diligence in its
order denying Deedy’s Moriwake motion to dismiss.

As counsel for

both parties are well-respected attorneys who have twice
litigated their cases with a high degree of diligence,
professionalism, and competence, it is unlikely that the quality
of their performance would give rise to a different result in a
32

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

subsequent trial.
dismissal.

Consequently, this factor weighs in favor of

See Hinton, 120 Hawai#i at 280, 204 P.3d at 499;

Deguair, 136 Hawai#i at 90, 358 P.3d at 62.
In short, we have previously held that where the
parties’ attorneys have competently and diligently presented
their cases in a professional manner, this factor should weigh in
favor of dismissal.

Faced with precisely those facts in this

case, the circuit court abused its discretion in its analysis of
the sixth Moriwake factor by disregarding the foregoing precedent
and concluding, without explanation, that this factor weighs in
favor of retrial.
To conclude, I concur with the Majority that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the
first Moriwake factor weighs in favor of retrial.

I disagree

with the Majority to the extent that from my perspective, the
circuit court misinterpreted and misapplied the remaining
Moriwake factors to the facts in this case.
these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Properly analyzed,
Accordingly, the

circuit court abused its discretion in denying Deedy’s motion to
dismiss brought under Moriwake.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I would hold that the
State is judicially estopped from retrying Deedy’s case, and that
33

 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
dismiss brought pursuant to State v. Moriwake.

Therefore, I

respectfully dissent.
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

34