State v. Sorensen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-APR-2025
08:31 AM
Dkt. 163 MO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MANU SORENSEN also known as ROSS MANU SORENSON,
Defendant-Appellant, and
ROBIN PAAKAULA also known as BOBBY,
Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO.1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka, and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Manu Sorensen (Sorensen) appeals

from the January 25, 2024 Amended Judgment of Conviction and

Sentence (Amended Judgment), entered by the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit (Circuit Court).1

I. BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Events

This case stems from an incident at a game room located on

the second floor of a building on Kapiolani Boulevard in

Honolulu. On the night of September 29, 2018, Sorensen went to

1
The Honorable Fa#auuga L. To#oto#o presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the game room with Robin Paakaula (Paakaula), Nalani Kaahu

(Kaahu), and Damien Kaahu (Damien). A struggle started between

Paakaula and the game room cashier, Dylan Tavares-Fairchild

(Tavares-Fairchild), after Paakaula attempted to take an envelope

of money from Tavares-Fairchild. During the course of this

incident, Sorensen allegedly pulled out a handgun and fired it

into the game room. The bullet struck Jacob Feliciano

(Feliciano), and he died from the gunshot wound the following

morning.

B. Pre-Trial Proceedings

On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i

(State) charged Sorensen by Indictment with: Count 1, Murder in

the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

§§ 707-701.5 (2014) and 706-656 (2014); Count 2, Robbery in the

First Degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b)(i) (2014);

Count 3, Carrying or Use of Firearm in the Commission of a

Separate Felony, in violation of HRS § 134-21 (2023); Count 4,

Carrying or Use of Firearm in the Commission of a Separate

Felony, in violation of HRS § 134-21; and Count 5, Place to Keep
Pistol or Revolver, in violation of HRS § 134-25 (2023).

On February 22, 2019, Sorensen filed [Sorensen's]

Motion to Compel Discovery or, in the Alternative, Motion to

Dismiss Indictment (Motion to Compel), seeking an order to compel

disclosure of the identity and contact information of the

confidential informant who facilitated the recovery of the

firearm used in this case, and all reports relating to how the

firearm came into the confidential informant's possession. The

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

State opposed the Motion to Compel, seeking to invoke the

privilege to withhold the confidential source's identity under

Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 510 and Hawaii Rules of Penal

Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16(e)(5)(ii).

The Circuit Court heard the Motion to Compel on March

15, 2019 and April 4, 2019. The following testimony was adduced

at the Motion to Compel hearings.

On October 16, 2018, a person showed up at Honolulu

Police Department (HPD) Corporal Ofeina Unga's (Cpl. Unga) home

unannounced and told him that they had information about the

location of a firearm that may have been used in a crime. Cpl.

Unga knew the unidentified person for over ten or fifteen years.

The person stated that they heard some rumors that this

particular firearm had been used in a "bad way" and that they

"wanted to get it off the streets." The person did not tell Cpl.

Unga what crime they suspected the firearm was involved in, nor

did they indicate that the firearm was in any way related to

Sorensen. Cpl. Unga stated that the person wanted to keep their

information confidential, and that identifying the person would

place them in harm's way. Cpl. Unga testified that he did not

have any personal knowledge of, nor did the person say, how the

person came into possession of the pistol. Cpl. Unga further

stated that based on the information available to him, he did not

have any reason to believe that the person was present at the

incident on September 29, 2018. Cpl. Unga did not ask the

confidential informant about how they got information regarding

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the firearm, and acknowledged there was potentially "a gold mine

of information out there regarding this firearm."

Cpl. Unga instructed the person that if they came into

possession of the firearm, they should drop off the firearm in

Cpl. Unga's mailbox within thirty to forty minutes. The person

left, and when Cpl. Unga checked the mailbox, he found a Smith &

Wesson 9 millimeter handgun wrapped in an old rag or towel.

Cpl. Unga then called HPD Sergeant Joseph Lum (Sgt.

Lum) to inform him that he recovered a firearm and to request

that he send an officer to retrieve it. Sgt. Lum testified that

Cpl. Unga relayed that a confidential source turned in a firearm,

and that the firearm was related to this case. Sgt. Lum further

stated that Cpl. Unga explained that "there was no way that this

anonymous person was going to turn in this firearm unless they

could remain anonymous."

Sgt. Lum assigned HPD Officer Colin Kim (Off. Kim) to

retrieve the firearm from Cpl. Unga. Off. Kim transported the

firearm back to the Kaneohe station and documented it into

evidence. Off. Kim filed an evidence report about the retrieval

of the firearm, but did not indicate in the report that Cpl. Unga

initially had possession of the firearm. Cpl. Unga had requested

Off. Kim to keep his name out of the report for unspecified

reasons. Several months after the firearm's retrieval, Sgt. Lum

requested that Cpl. Unga submit a follow-up report and Cpl. Unga

did so on March 13, 2019.

The Circuit Court denied the Motion to Compel, stating:
Based on the request for discovery here and what's on the
record at this point in this proceeding, the Court finds
that the State has complied with the defense request in the

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

motion, in their motion to compel discovery. And based on
the record, based on the evidence that is on record up to
this point in this proceeding, the State has complied with
the motion to compel discovery. So therefore, the motion to
compel discovery is denied.

On April 5, 2019, the Circuit Court entered an order

denying the Motion to Compel, which also stated that "the court

found that the State complied with [Sorensen's] request for

discovery."

On December 13, 2019, the State filed State's Motion in

Limine No. 2 (MIL 2), seeking an order preventing any comment

upon or reference to, inter alia, the identity of the person who
communicated with Cpl. Unga concerning the transfer of the

firearm. The hearing on MIL 2 was held on December 20, 2019.

Sorensen argued that he should be allowed to confront Cpl. Unga

on the witness stand and have Cpl. Unga deny the defense's

ability to find out who the confidential informant was. The

Circuit Court orally granted the State's request to preclude any

comment upon or reference to the identity of the confidential

informant because the matter had been previously litigated.

Also relevant to this appeal, on January 2, 2020, the

State gave notice that there was a pending matter for witness

Nalani Kaahu (Kaahu) for Theft in the Fourth Degree, and that

Kaahu had previously been twice convicted of Theft in the Second

Degree. On January 6, 2020, after reviewing the criminal

abstracts in camera, the Circuit Court found the Theft in the

Second Degree convictions were relevant.

C. Guilt Phase of Trial

Trial was held from January 6, 2020, to January 13,

2020. The State called twenty-eight witnesses, including, inter

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

alia, Tavares-Fairchild, Sandon Scanlan (Scanlan), Kaahu, Cpl.

Unga, and HPD Criminalist Cindee Lorenzo (Criminalist Lorenzo).

Sorensen also called Kaahu as a witness.

Tavares-Fairchild testified as follows. On September

29, 2018, Tavares-Fairchild was working as a cashier in the game

room. He kept the cash in a blue envelope. Feliciano was a

friend of Tavares-Fairchild's who was shot and killed in the game

room on the night of September 29, 2018. Tavares-Fairchild

testified that Paakaula asked him for change for a twenty dollar

bill, Tavares-Fairchild pulled out the blue envelope to give him

change, and Paakaula snatched the envelope from Tavares-

Fairchild. Tavares-Fairchild and Paakaula got into a "scuffle"

over the envelope, and other patrons attempted to subdue Paakaula

to regain the envelope. During the struggle, Tavares-Fairchild

reportedly heard two loud thuds from the interior door, and then

a "loud bang." He stated that he saw a "plume of smoke coming

from the security gate." Tavares-Fairchild later saw Feliciano

bleeding on the ground. One of the patrons tried to stop the

bleeding by applying pressure to the wound, and Tavares-Fairchild

called the police.

Scanlan worked as security for the game room on

September 29, 2018. Scanlan testified that the game room had an

exterior wooden door and an interior screen door. The exterior

door had a lock that was controlled remotely by Scanlan, and the

interior door had a manual lock that Scanlan would open. A

person standing outside the closed interior screen door was

visible to those inside the game room. Scanlan reported hearing

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sorensen tell Paakaula to get change. Scanlan thought Sorensen

was leaving, so he buzzed the exterior door for Sorensen.

Scanlan reported hearing Sorensen tell Paakaula to grab the

money. Sorensen was standing partially inside the interior door.

After the altercation between Tavares-Fairchild and Paakaula

started, Scanlan slammed the interior door shut and manually

locked the deadbolt. Scanlan stated he was eye-to-eye with

Sorensen. Sorensen unsuccessfully tried to get back into the

game room. Scanlen testified that Sorensen said, "Fuck, you like

play?" before pulling out a gun from a fanny pack. Scanlan

testified that once he saw the gun, he moved to the side.

Scanlan stated that he saw Sorensen point the gun into the game

room. Scanlan reported hearing a loud pop from the doorway, but

he did not actually see the gun being fired. Scanlan later

became aware that Feliciano had been hit. After hearing the loud

pop, Scanlan tried to hold Paakaula down with Tavares-Fairchild

and the other patrons.

Prior to Kaahu's testimony, the Circuit Court

reiterated that Kaahu could be questioned about whether she had

been twice convicted of Theft in the Second Degree. The Circuit
Court denied Sorensen's request to question Kaahu about specific

details of the convictions.

Kaahu testified that on September 29, 2018, Sorensen

and Paakaula were at her home. Kaahu wanted Sorensen and

Paakaula to leave, so she drove her husband Damien, Sorensen, and

Paakaula in her van. Sorensen mentioned the game room during the

drive, and Kaahu drove the four of them to the game room. Kaahu

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered the game room first, and Damien, Sorensen, and Paakaula

eventually joined her. About twenty minutes after they arrived,

Kaahu and Damien left the game room and waited in their van for

Sorensen and Paakaula. Kaahu testified that after a few minutes,

Sorensen entered the van and said, "Unks, go, they're mobbing

him." Sorensen laid on the floor of the van, and Damien drove

the van home. When they got home, Sorensen left.

Sorensen elicited on cross-examination that Kaahu had

been twice convicted of Theft in the Second Degree, a class C

felony, and that the convictions took place approximately ten

years prior. The Circuit Court sustained the Deputy Prosecuting

Attorney's (DPA) objection to Sorensen's attempt to question

Kaahu about her sentence.

It was established at trial that shortly after Tavares-

Fairchild's call to 9-1-1, HPD officers arrived at the scene.

HPD officers detained Paakaula, who was being restrained by

Tavares-Fairchild. Emergency Medical Technicians then arrived

and administered first aid to Feliciano and transported him to

Queen's Medical Center. Feliciano died the following morning.

The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest. An HPD

evidence specialist testified that HPD recovered a cartridge case

from the exterior floor of the game room external door, which was

received into evidence as State Exhibit 111. The medical

examiner removed a bullet from Feliciano during the autopsy,

which was received into evidence as State Exhibit 112.

On October 1, 2018, two days after the incident,

Sorensen surrendered himself into police custody.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Prior to Cpl. Unga's testimony at trial, the State

sought an order precluding Sorensen from questioning Cpl. Unga

about the confidential informant who facilitated the recovery of

the firearm. The Circuit Court reiterated its ruling that

"[n]either side can ask [Cpl.] Unga the name of the person who

gave him the gun[.]" Cpl. Unga testified on direct examination

about the retrieval of the firearm from the confidential

informant, consistent with his testimony adduced at the Motion to

Compel hearing. Cpl. Unga identified State Exhibits 113 and 114

as the Smith & Wesson handgun and the magazine that he recovered

from the confidential informant. The handgun and magazine were

received in evidence. On cross-examination, Cpl. Unga testified

that he knew the confidential informant, and that the

confidential informant stated that the firearm may have been

involved in some bad things and that he wanted to get it off the

street. Sorensen was prevented from questioning Cpl. Unga about

the information the confidential informant gave him about the

firearm.

Criminalist Lorenzo was qualified as an expert witness

in the identification of discharge cartridge cases or bullets to
a firearm. Lorenzo test fired the Smith & Wesson handgun

recovered by Cpl. Unga and conducted a comparison between the

test-fired cartridge case with the cartridge case recovered at

the incident scene. Lorenzo found that there were sufficient

corresponding breech face signatures and marks to conclude that

the cartridge case from the incident scene was fired by the Smith

& Wesson handgun. Lorenzo also compared the test-fired bullet

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

exemplars with the bullet recovered at the incident scene.

Lorenzo found that there were sufficient corresponding barrel

signatures to conclude that the recovered bullet was fired from

the Smith & Wesson handgun.

On January 15, 2020, the jury found Sorensen guilty of

Count 1's included offense of Manslaughter, Count 3, Carrying or

Use of a Firearm while Engaged in the Commission of a Separate

Felony, and Count 5, Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver.

D. Sentencing Phase of Trial

After the jury's verdict, sentencing was delayed for

over three years due to the withdrawal of Sorensen's counsel and

the COVID-19 epidemic, among other reasons.

On January 22, 2020, the State filed State's Motion for

Extended Terms of Imprisonment, seeking extended terms of

imprisonment for all three counts. On March 10, 2020, the State

also filed State's Motion for Consecutive Term Sentencing,

seeking consecutive terms of imprisonment for all three counts.

On July 19, 2021, Sorensen filed Defendant's Motions in

Limine, seeking to, inter alia, exclude from use at trial

testimonial or documentary evidence that is overly prejudicial:
The Defendant requests an Order excluding from use at
trial testimonial or documentary evidence that is overly
prejudicial evidence. HRE 403. This includes evidence that
was part of the guilt/innocence phase of trial, to include
but not be limited to: autopsy photos. The jury will be
aware of the most serious charge for which [Sorensen] was
convicted, Manslaughter. It is unnecessary for the jury to
see gruesome photos of a corpse and the photographs’
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice. Id.

At the August 22, 2023 hearing on Sorensen's Motions in

Limine, the State sought leave to "introduce a thumbnail

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sketch . . . of the surrounding facts and circumstances that gave

rise to the convictions for which Mr. Sorensen awaits

sentencing." The Circuit Court allowed the State to present some

of the facts elicited during the guilt phase of the trial:
[B]ecause we're not using the same jury here, okay, we
-- the State -- the court is allowing the State to present
some of the witnesses, give the jury a -- some kind of
background but not the – all of the facts that were elicited
during the -- the guilt phase of the trial so the -- the
jury can have some -- some background as to what this case
was and -- which led to the manslaughter conviction. So
based on the nature -- based on the offer of proof for those
proposed witnesses and the time, over the defense objection
the court is allowing those witnesses to testify as -- based
on the offer proffered by the State.

The sentencing phase of trial took place in front of a

different jury, on September 13 and 14, 2023. In closing

argument, Sorensen's counsel stated, "I want to emphasize that we

are not –- this is not the time or place really for us to

challenge the verdict[.]" Sorensen's counsel then pointed out

that the video surveillance did not catch who fired the shot,

that HPD never obtained the surveillance footage of the outer

door where the shot was fired, that the diameter of the bullet

hole left by the 9 millimeter bullet was 20 millimeters, that the

height of the bullet hole in the interior door was not measured,

and that there were discrepancies in the photographs taken at the

incident scene.

In the State's rebuttal, the DPA stated:
The defendant's guilt has long since been established.
Yet defense would have us relitigate the underlying facts
and circumstances that caused Jacob Feliciano's death. The
purpose of this hearing is for the prosecution just to give
a thumbnail sketch of the evidence that was presented during
the guilt phase trial.

Page 11 of your instructions read:
The prosecution is not required to call as witnesses
all persons who may have been present at any of the events
disclosed by the evidence, or may appear to have some

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

knowledge of these events, or to produce all objects or
documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence.
We're not here to relitigate the defendant's guilt.
Please be assured that during the guilt phase trial the
prosecution's presentation was much more expansive than the
one-day thumbnail that I gave you yesterday.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Counsel testifying.
THE COURT: Overrule.

The jury found that Sorensen was a multiple offender

that had been sentenced for two or more felonies, and that it was

necessary for the protection of the public to extend Sorensen's

sentence for Count 5, Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver, but not

for Count 1, Manslaughter, or Count 3, Carrying Firearm in the

Commission of a Separate Felony.

On January 25, 2024, the Circuit Court entered the

Amended Judgment, sentencing Sorensen to a twenty-year term for

Count 1, a twenty-year term for Count 3, and a twenty-year

extended term for Count 5.

On February 9, 2024, the Circuit Court entered Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting State's Motion

for Consecutive Term Sentencing. The Circuit Court found and

concluded that the nature and the circumstances of the offenses

factor supported consecutive sentences because Sorensen's crimes

were neither run of the mill nor routine, that Sorensen had no

firearms registered to him and no license to carry, that the

firearm used was a pistol with a defaced serial number, and that

Sorensen did not act under strong provocation.

The Circuit Court found and concluded that Sorensen's

history and characteristics factor supported consecutive term

sentencing because Sorensen was previously convicted of extortion

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

by interstate communication and assault on different dates

involving different victims, and that Sorensen failed to comply

with the terms of supervised release and was resentenced to

additional terms of imprisonment.

The Circuit Court found and concluded that the

seriousness of the offenses factor favored consecutive terms

because (1) in Count 1, Sorensen was convicted of Manslaughter, a

class A felony, for recklessly causing Feliciano's death; (2) in

Count 3, Sorensen was convicted of Carrying or Use of a Firearm

in the Commission of a Separate Felony, which is a class A

felony; and (3) in Count 5, Sorensen was convicted of Place to

Keep Pistol or Revolver, a class B felony. The Circuit Court

deemed Counts 1 and 5 to be serious offenses.

The Circuit Court found and concluded that the respect

for the law factor weighed in favor of consecutive sentences

because Sorensen demonstrated a profound disrespect for the law

when he brought a loaded operable semiautomatic pistol to the

game room, there was no legitimate explanation for his possession

or use of the pistol on that day, and by discharging the

semiautomatic pistol in the game room, Sorensen demonstrated a
callous disregard for the safety of others.

The Circuit Court found and concluded that a

consecutive term sentence for each count would provide just

punishment because a concurrent twenty-year term was inadequate

to satisfy the retributive objective of sentencing. The Circuit

Court found and concluded that consecutive sentencing was needed

to ensure the protection of the public because Sorensen had a

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

documented history of escalating violence. The Circuit Court

found and concluded that consecutive sentences would provide

Sorensen needed treatment because Sorensen had previous

opportunities to rehabilitate himself but did not do so.

Sorensen timely filed the Notice of Appeal on February

23, 2024.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

Sorensen raises five points of error on appeal,

contending that: (1) the Circuit Court erred in denying

Sorensen's Motion to Compel regarding the recovery of the

firearm, including the identity of the person who came into

possession of the firearm; (2) the Circuit Court erred in

precluding Sorensen from introducing the facts and circumstances

regarding the recovery of the firearm from the confidential

informant; (3) the Circuit Court abused its discretion in

precluding Sorensen from fully impeaching Kaahu; (4) the DPA

committed misconduct during his closing argument in the

sentencing hearing, which deprived Sorensen of his right to a

fair hearing; and (5) the Circuit Court abused its discretion in

sentencing Sorensen to sixty years of imprisonment.
III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review a trial court's ruling limiting the scope of

discovery under the abuse of discretion standard. State v.

Fukusaku, 85 Hawai#i 462, 477-78, 946 P.2d 32, 47-48 (1997).

"[A]n abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has 'clearly

exceed[ed] the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles

of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

litigant.'" State v. Austin, 143 Hawai#i 18, 29, 422 P.3d 18, 29

(2018) (cleaned up).
The scope of cross-examination is generally within the
sound discretion of the trial court. While the right of
cross-examination protected by the Confrontation Clause of
the Sixth Amendment may not be unduly restricted it has
never been held that this right is absolutely without
restriction. However, the trial court's discretion in
exercising control and excluding evidence of a witness's
bias or motive to testify falsely becomes operative only
after the constitutionally required threshold level of
inquiry has been afforded the defendant. The Sixth
Amendment is satisfied where sufficient information is
elicited to allow the jury to gauge adequately a witness's
credibility and to assess his [or her] motives or possible
bias. When the trial court excludes evidence tending to
impeach a witness, it has not abused its discretion as long
as the jury has in its possession sufficient information to
appraise the biases and motivations of the witness.

State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i 109, 114, 924 P.2d 1215, 1220

(1996) (cleaned up).

"Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed

under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which

requires an examination of the record and a determination of

'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error

complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'"

Austin, 143 Hawai#i at 28–29, 422 P.3d at 28–29 (citing State v.

Sawyer, 88 Hawai#i 325, 329 n.6, 966 P.2d 637, 641 n.6 (1998)

(quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i at 114, 924 P.2d at 1220).

Regarding sentencing, the Hawai#i Supreme Court has

held:
A sentencing judge generally has broad discretion in
imposing a sentence. The applicable standard of review for
sentencing or resentencing matters is whether the court
committed plain and manifest abuse of discretion in its
decision. Factors which indicate a plain and manifest abuse
of discretion are arbitrary or capricious action by the
judge and a rigid refusal to consider the defendant's
contentions. And, generally, to constitute an abuse it must
appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason
or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the
substantial detriment to the litigant.
State v. Kong, 131 Hawai#i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727
(2013).

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Further, "[t]he weight to be given the factors set
forth in HRS § 706–606 in imposing sentence is a matter
generally left to the discretion of the sentencing court,
taking into consideration the circumstances of each case."
Id. (quoting State v. Akana, 10 Haw.App. 381, 386, 876 P.2d
1331, 1334 (1994)).

State v. Barrios, 139 Hawai#i 321, 328, 389 P.3d 916, 923 (2016).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The Confidential Informant

Sorensen argues that the Circuit Court erred in denying

disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant because

the confidential informant may have possessed the necessary
information to trace the firearm to the person who was in

possession of and fired the firearm during the incident.

Sorensen also argues that the Circuit Court erred by failing to

conduct an in camera review of the affidavits or testimony of the

confidential informant and Cpl. Unga, as well as by failing to

make any findings as to whether the confidential informant was a

necessary witness.

Under HRPP Rule 16(e)(5)(ii), disclosure of an

informant's identity shall not be required where the informant's

identity is a prosecution secret and a failure to disclose will

not infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant. Under

HRE Rule 510(a), the government has a privilege to refuse to

disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information

relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible

violation of law to a law enforcement officer. However, under

the HRE Rule 510(c)(2) exception:
If it appears from the evidence in the case or from other
showing by a party that an informer may be able to give
testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of
guilt or innocence in a criminal case or of a material issue
on the merits in a civil case to which the government is a
party, and the government invokes the privilege, the judge

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

shall give the government an opportunity to show in camera
facts relevant to determining whether the informer can, in
fact, supply that testimony. The showing will ordinarily be
in the form of affidavits, but the judge may direct that
testimony be taken if the judge finds that the matter cannot
be resolved satisfactorily upon affidavit. If the judge
finds that there is a reasonable probability that the
informer can give the testimony, and the government elects
not to disclose the informer's identity, the judge on motion
of the defendant in a criminal case shall dismiss the
charges to which the testimony would relate, and the judge
may do so on the judge's own motion.

In order to make an adequate record for appellate

review:
(1) the circuit court must determine if there is information
in the affidavit that could lead to the identification of
the [confidential informant]; (2) the circuit court must
determine if the information is discoverable or privileged
pursuant to HRE Rule 510 or HRPP Rule 16(e)(5)(ii) and state
its reasons in findings of fact and conclusions of law; (3)
if the information is privileged, the circuit court must
determine if an exception applies to the privilege; and (4)
if the circuit court believes an exception applies, it
should state its reasons in findings of fact and conclusions
of law.

State v. Rodrigues, 88 Hawai#i 363, 368-69, 966 P.2d 1089, 1094-

95 (1998); see also State v. Opupele, 88 Hawai#i 433, 438, 967

P.2d 265, 270 (1998) (vacating and remanding conviction because

trial court failed to make any findings as to whether the

confidential informant was a necessary witness).

Here, Sorensen filed the Motion to Compel, seeking all

reports relating to how the firearm came into the hands of the

confidential informant, their full identity, and information as

to how to contact this person. The Circuit Court did not conduct

an in camera review of the information regarding the confidential

informant. HRE Rule 510(c)(2). The Circuit Court denied

Sorensen's Motion to Compel based on its finding that "the State

complied with [Sorensen's] request for discovery." The Circuit

Court made none of the findings required under HRE Rule

510(c)(2).

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In this case, the confidential informant facilitated

the firearm's retrieval, whereas confidential informer cases more

typically involve a confidential informer who provided

information that served as the basis for a search warrant. See,

e.g., Rodrigues, 88 Hawai#i at 364, 966 P.2d at 1090; Opupele, 88

Hawai#i at 435, 967 P.2d at 267; State v. Kapiko, 88 Hawai#i 396,

397-98, 967 P.2d 228, 229-30 (1998). Regardless, the State used

the firearm as evidence against Sorensen at trial. Accordingly,

we cannot conclude that the Circuit Court's failure to make the

requisite findings under HRE Rule 510 was harmless error.

Therefore, we must vacate Sorensen's conviction and

remand the case with instructions to the Circuit Court to make

the requisite findings under HRE Rule 510.2

Sorensen further argues that the Circuit Court erred in

precluding questioning of Cpl. Unga regarding the recovery of the

firearm from the confidential informant. Specifically, Sorensen

argues that he should have been allowed to question Cpl. Unga

about how or why the confidential informant came into possession

of the firearm, from whom the confidential informant obtained the

firearm, when the confidential informant came into possession of
the firearm, how well Cpl. Unga knew the confidential informant,

2
When a trial court fails to follow the procedures mandated by HRE
Rule 510 in determining whether the identity of a confidential informant
needed to be disclosed, and that error was not harmless, the remedy is to
vacate the defendant's conviction and remand to the trial court for
determination of the applicability of the informer privilege. Opupele, 88
Hawai#i at 441, 967 P.2d at 273. If the trial court determines that the HRE
Rule 510 privilege applies and that no exception applies, then the court shall
so order and reenter the judgment of conviction. Id. If the court determines
that the identity of the confidential informant must be revealed, it must
order the prosecution to elect whether to disclose the identity or dismiss the
charges against the defendant. Id. If the prosecution elects to disclose the
confidential informant's identity, a new trial must be held. Id.

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and why Cpl. Unga did not want to disclose the confidential

informant's identity. However, whether the Circuit Court erred

in precluding this line of questioning, wholly or in part, is

intertwined with and may depend on the Circuit Court's

determination whether the identity of the confidential informant

must be disclosed.3 Therefore, it is premature for us to address

this argument.

B. Kaahu's Prior Convictions

Sorensen argues that the Circuit Court erred in

precluding evidence regarding the specific facts and

circumstances of Kaahu's convictions because this evidence was

relevant and admissible to the issue of Kaahu's credibility.

Sorensen contends that the Circuit Court should have allowed

Sorensen to question Kaahu about the items stolen, from whom the

items were stolen, the value of the items, the extent of the

planning, and the period of time involved in Kaahu's Theft in the

Second Degree convictions.

HRE Rule 609(a) provides in relevant part: "For the

purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that

the witness has been convicted of a crime is inadmissible except
when the crime is one involving dishonesty." The commentary to

HRE Rule 609(a) clarifies that the wording of the rule
is employed to make it clear that Rule 403's discretionary
balance governs the question of admissibility under this
rule. For purposes of this balance, the relevance of a
prior conviction involving dishonesty will depend primarily
upon the nature of the crime and the age of the conviction.

3
We note that pursuant to HRE Rule 513, the claim of a privilege is
not a proper subject of comment by counsel, and that proceedings shall be
conducted, to the extent practicable, so that claims of privilege are made
without the knowledge of the jury.

19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"The scope and extent of cross-examination on

collateral matters bearing on credibility is within the sound

discretion of the trial judge." State v. Emmsley, 3 Haw. App.

459, 467, 652 P.2d 1148, 1154 (1982) (citation omitted).
[T]he trial court's discretion in exercising control and
excluding evidence of a witness's [credibility] becomes
operative only after the constitutionally required threshold
level of inquiry has been afforded the defendant. . . .
'When the trial court excludes evidence tending to impeach a
witness, it has not abused its discretion as long as the
jury has in its possession sufficient information to
appraise the [credibility] of the witness.'

State v. White, 92 Hawai#i 192, 205, 990 P.2d 90, 103 (1999)

(quoting Balisbisana, 83 Hawai#i at 114, 924 P.2d at 1220).

Here, the Circuit Court allowed Sorensen's counsel to

elicit from Kaahu that she had been twice convicted of Theft in

the Second Degree, that Theft in the Second Degree is a class C

felony, and that the convictions took place approximately ten

years prior. The Circuit Court precluded Sorensen's counsel from

questioning Kaahu further about the details of the convictions.

The extent of further cross-examination regarding the facts and

circumstances of Kaahu's prior convictions rested within the

discretion of the Circuit Court. See White, 92 Hawai#i at 205,

990 P.2d at 103. Sorensen argues that the facts and

circumstances of Kaahu's prior convictions were probative of her

untruthfulness. However, evidence of a witness's prior

convictions may still be excluded depending on the nature of the

crime and the age of the conviction. HRE Rule 609(a) cmt.; see

also HRE Rule 403. Theft offenses are not per se crimes of

dishonesty and Kaahu's convictions took place approximately ten

years prior to Sorensen's trial. See, e.g., State v. Pacheco, 96

Hawai#i 83, 100, 26 P.3d 572, 589 (2001); State v. Pudiquet, 82

20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawai#i 419, 427, 922 P.2d 1032, 1040 (App. 1996) (affirming

trial court's determination that defendant's nine-year-old theft

conviction was too "collateral" and "remote" to be admissible to

impeach prosecution's witness). We conclude that the Circuit

Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of

Sorensen's cross-examination of Kaahu.

C. Asserted Prosecutorial Misconduct

Sorensen argues that the DPA's comments during the

sentencing hearing's closing argument amounted to prosecutorial

misconduct.
A prosecutor is allowed wide latitude in discussing
the evidence during closing argument. State v. Rogan, 91
Hawai#i 405, 412, 984 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1999). Prosecutors
may "state, discuss, and comment on the evidence as well as
draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence." Id.
(citations omitted). "In other words, closing argument
affords the prosecution . . . the opportunity to persuade
the jury that its theory of the case is valid, based upon
the evidence adduced and all reasonable inferences that can
be drawn therefrom." Id. at 413, 984 P.2d at 1239 (citation
omitted).
However, this latitude is not without limit. "[T]he
scope of [the prosecutor's] argument must be consistent with
the evidence and marked by the fairness that should
characterize all of the prosecutor's conduct." Id. (quoting
ABA Prosecution Function Standard 3-5.8(a)). "A prosecutor
exceeds the acceptable scope of closing argument when a
statement cannot be justified as a fair comment on the
evidence but instead is more akin to the presentation of
wholly new evidence to the jury, which should only be
admitted subject to cross-examination, to proper
instructions and to the rules of evidence. State v.
Underwood, 142 Hawai#i 317, 326, 418 P.3d 658, 667 (2018)
(quoting State v. Basham, 132 Hawai#i 97, 112, 319 P.3d
1105, 1120 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

State v. Pasene, 144 Hawai#i 339, 367-68, 439 P.3d 864, 892-93

(2019) (cleaned up). Prosecutors have latitude to respond in

rebuttal to arguments raised by defense counsel in their closing.

State v. Acker, 133 Hawai#i 253, 280, 327 P.3d 931, 958 (2014);

State v. Mars, 116 Hawai#i 125, 142, 170 P.3d 861, 878 (App.

2007) ("The prosecution may base its closing argument on the

21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

evidence presented or reasonable inferences therefrom, respond to

comments by defense counsel which invite or provoke response,

denounce the activities of defendant and highlight

inconsistencies in defendant's argument." (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted)).

Here, Sorensen's counsel made a number of comments in

closing argument regarding the evidence adduced in the guilt

phase of trial. He argued to the jury that the video

surveillance footage did not show who fired the shot or where the

shot came from, that HPD never obtained the surveillance footage

of the outer door, that the hole left by the 9 millimeter bullet

in the door was 20 millimeters, that the height of the bullet

hole was not measured, and that there were discrepancies in HPD's

photographs of the incident scene. Although counsel acknowledged

"this is not the time or place really for us to challenge the

verdict," he nevertheless made arguments that appeared to

challenge the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.

The DPA then stated in rebuttal:
The defendant's guilt has long since been established.
Yet defense would have us relitigate the underlying facts
and circumstances that caused Jacob Feliciano's death. The
purpose of this hearing is for the prosecution just to give
a thumbnail sketch of the evidence that was presented during
the guilt phase trial.

. . . .
We're not here to relitigate the defendant's guilt.
Please be assured that during the guilt phase trial the
prosecution's presentation was much more expansive than the
one-day thumbnail that I gave you yesterday.

The Circuit Court allowed the DPA's statement over

objection. The DPA's comment that the evidence presented during

the guilt phase of trial was "much more expansive" than the

evidence presented in the sentencing phase of trial was made in

22
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

response to comments by Sorensen's counsel. We conclude that the

DPA's comments did not constitute misconduct.

D. Consecutive Sentences

Sorensen argues that the Circuit Court abused its

discretion when it imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment

because it did not sufficiently explain its rationale for each

consecutive sentence.

HRS § 706-606 (2014) provides the factors the trial

court must consider in sentencing a defendant:
§ 706-606 Factors to be considered in imposing a
sentence. The court, in determining the particular sentence
to be imposed, shall consider:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the
defendant;
(2) The need for the sentence imposed:

(a) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense;

(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct;

(c) To protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant; and

(d) To provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) The kinds of sentences available; and
(4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct.

Under HRS § 706-668.5(1) (Supp. 2023), where a

defendant is convicted of multiple offenses, there exists a

presumption that multiple terms of imprisonment run concurrently,

unless the court orders or the applicable statute mandates that

the terms run consecutively. Courts must state on the record at

23
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the time of sentencing the reasons for imposing a consecutive

sentence for each and every consecutive sentence. Barrios, 139

Hawai#i at 337, 389 P.3d at 932. Even if a court uses identical

factors to support multiple consecutive sentences, it must

specify the basis or identify another basis for determining how

many consecutive sentences to impose. Id.; see, e.g., State v.

Sandoval, 149 Hawai#i 221, 236, 487 P.3d 308, 323 (2021)

(vacating imposition of multiple consecutive sentences because

circuit court failed to specify why it imposed each of the

thirteen sentences consecutively); State v. Bautista, 153 Hawai#i

284, 291, 535 P.3d 1029, 1036 (2023) (vacating imposition of

three consecutive sentences because circuit court offered no

rationale for each consecutive sentence).

Here, the Circuit Court analyzed each HRS § 706-606

factor to explain its rationale for consecutive sentencing and

found and concluded that each factor supported consecutive

sentencing. The Circuit Court determined, inter alia, that

Sorensen's crimes were neither run of the mill nor routine, that

Sorensen had previously been convicted of extortion by interstate

communication and assault on different dates involving different
victims, that Sorensen's supervised release prohibited him from

possessing a firearm, that there was no legitimate explanation

for Sorensen's possession and use of the semiautomatic pistol at

the game room, that Sorensen demonstrated a callous disregard for

the safety of others by discharging the semiautomatic pistol into

the game room, and that Sorensen has a documented history of

escalating violence. However, the Circuit Court failed to

24
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

explain its rationale for imposing each consecutive sentence.

Because the Circuit Court failed to meet the stringent standard

applicable to multiple consecutive sentences by clearly

articulating its reasons for each of the consecutive sentences,

we conclude that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in

imposing multiple consecutive sentences here. Sorensen's

consecutive sentences must be vacated. Therefore, upon remand to

the Circuit Court, even if the Circuit Court reenters the

judgment of conviction upon making the requisite findings

concerning the confidential informant, Sorensen must be

resentenced.

V. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's January 25, 2024

Amended Judgment is vacated and we remand the case for further

proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. The Circuit

Court is hereby instructed to make the requisite findings under

HRE Rule 510. If the Circuit Court determines that the identity

of the confidential informant must be revealed, it must order the

State to elect whether to disclose the identity of the

confidential informant or dismiss the charges.
If the State elects to disclose the confidential

informant's identity, a new trial must be held.

If the Circuit Court determines that HRE Rule 510

privilege applies and that no exception to the privilege applies,

a new trial is not required and the Circuit Court shall reenter

the judgment of conviction.

25
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

However, even if a new trial is not required and the

judgment of conviction is to be reentered, the Circuit Court must

resentence Sorensen in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion

prior to the reentry of the judgment of conviction and sentence.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2025.

On the briefs:

James S. Tabe, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Defendant-Appellant. Acting Chief Judge

Brian R. Vincent, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

26