State v. Rokonakva

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-AUG-2025
08:01 AM
Dkt. 37 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUKE ROKONAKVA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DTA-23-00797)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Luke Rokonakva (Rokonakva)
challenges his conviction for operating a vehicle under the
influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), based on a lack of a
Tachibana colloquy 1 and insufficient evidence to support the
conviction. We vacate and remand.
Rokonakva appeals from the November 22, 2023 "Notice
of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Judgment)

1 Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai‘i 226, 900 P.2d 1293 (1995).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State) and the
December 12, 2023 "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Rokonakva]'s Motion
to Suppress Statements" (Suppression Order), 2 filed and entered
by the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court). 3
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Rokonakva's contentions as follows.
The record reflects that at the November 22, 2023
hearing on Rokonakva's motions to suppress and at the trial that
followed, Rokonakva was given a Lewis/Monteil 4 pretrial
advisement at the outset, before the suppression hearing
commenced. During the suppression hearing, Rokonakva was given
a Tachibana colloquy at the end of the State's presentation and
before the end of Rokonakva's presentation, which included an
advisement that his testimony at the suppression hearing could
not be used against him at trial. See State v. Chang, 144
Hawai‘i 535, 545, 445 P.3d 116, 126 (2019) (requiring voluntary,
knowing, and intelligent waiver of the right to testify at a
suppression hearing). For the trial that followed the District
Court's ruling on the motions to suppress, the parties agreed to
incorporate the police officers' suppression hearing testimony.
The District Court then denied Rokonakva's motion for judgment
of acquittal, and proceeded straight to closing argument,

2 Rokonakva does not challenge the Suppression Order in his points
of error or present any argument regarding it. We do not address it. See
Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) and (7).
3 The Honorable Timothy E. Ho presided over the trial.

4 State v. Lewis, 94 Hawai‘i 292, 12 P.3d 1233 (2000); State v.
Monteil, 134 Hawai‘i 361, 341 P.3d 567 (2014).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

without conducting a Tachibana colloquy "immediately prior to
the close of the defendant's case" during the trial. State v.
Chong Hung Han, 130 Hawai‘i 83, 88, 306 P.3d 128, 133 (2013)
(citing Tachibana, 79 Hawai‘i at 237, 900 P.2d at 1304).
We agree with the State's concession that the District
Court erred in failing to administer a Tachibana colloquy at
trial. See State v. Eduwensuyi, 141 Hawai‘i 328, 337, 409 P.3d
732, 741 (2018) ("A prosecutor's confession, although not
binding on an appellate court, is 'entitled to great weight.'"
(citations omitted)). Because we cannot conclude that Rokonakva
would not have testified at trial, this error was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 336-37, 409 P.3d at 740-
41.
In light of our remand for a new trial, we consider
Rokonakva's evidentiary sufficiency challenge. See State v.
Davis, 133 Hawai‘i 102, 114, 324 P.3d 912, 924 (2014) (requiring
review of an evidentiary sufficiency challenge before remanding
for a new trial based on trial error). "Evidence adduced in the
trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the
prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal
sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction[.]" State
v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)
(brackets and citation omitted). "The test on appeal is not
whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but
whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion
of the trier of fact." Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the record reflects that Rokonakva appeared "off
balance[,]" "staggered[,]" and was "swaying . . . in circles"
and "stumbling" during the standardized field sobriety test
(SFST), which he was unable to complete. Rokonakva's vehicle
was involved in a collision; he admitted to driving the vehicle
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in the accident; and his vehicle had signs of damage. Rokonakva
had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath; and his eyes were
"bloodshot, red, glassy, [and] watery." Viewing the evidence in
the strongest light for the prosecution, there was substantial
evidence to convict Rokonakva of OVUII. See State v. Pedro, NO.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2021 WL 1553861, at *2 (Haw. App. Apr. 20,
2021) (SDO) (upholding substantial evidence of an OVUII
conviction where: the defendant performed poorly on the SFST;
the defendant was observed outside an overturned vehicle and
admitted being the driver of the vehicle; the arresting officer
detected an odor of an "intoxication beverage"; and the
defendant's eyes were "red, glassy, [and] slightly watery"
(ellipses omitted)); Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i at 49, 237 P.3d at
1115.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the District
Court's November 22, 2023 Judgment and remand for a new trial.
We affirm the December 12, 2023 Suppression Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 25, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Alen M. K. Kaneshiro, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Robert T. Nakatsuji, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

4