State of Hawaiʻi v. Orlando Pecpec

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the family court was required to give a specific unanimity instruction because the charges involved multiple alleged acts corresponding to separate counts. The court found the instructional error harmless because the evidence, arguments, and instructions established a one-to-one relationship between the counts and exhibits. However, it vacated the consecutive sentence imposed on Count 13 and remanded for resentencing because the record did not establish that the jury unanimously based that count on the exhibit relied upon by the family court.

Holdings

1. A specific unanimity instruction was required because the number of acts offered in evidence corresponded to the number of counts, but the jury was not informed which act coincided with each count.
2. The instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence, instructions, and arguments made clear that there was a one-to-one relationship between the 19 exhibits and the 19 counts on which Pecpec was convicted.
3. The family court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence on count 13 based on exhibit 17 because the record did not establish that the jury specifically associated exhibit 17 with count 13.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court violated Pecpec's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction when multiple acts corresponded to multiple counts but the court did not identify which act corresponded to each count.
2. Whether the omission of the specific unanimity instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the family court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence on count 13 based on exhibit 17 without a record showing that the jury specifically associated exhibit 17 with count 13.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded