CourtListener 10734268

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-NOV-2025
08:00 AM
Dkt. 121 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN P. NAMAUU, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Justin Namauu appeals from the Judgment; Conviction and
Sentence entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit on
April 24, 2024.1 We affirm.
A grand jury indicted Namauu on five counts: (1) Murder
in the Second Degree; (2) Carrying or Use of Firearm in the
Commission of a Separate Felony; (3) Ownership or Possession
Prohibited (pistol) (4) Ownership or Possession Prohibited
(ammunition); and (5) Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver. He
pleaded not guilty.
Count 5 was dismissed before trial. A jury found
Namauu guilty as charged on the remaining counts. He was
sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole on
count 1, twenty years on count 2, ten years on count 3, and ten

1
The Honorable Michelle L. Drewyer presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

years on count 4. Count 1 was to run consecutively to count 2.
Counts 3 and 4 were to run concurrently with each other and with
counts 1 and 2. This appeal followed.
Namauu contends: (1) the trial court erroneously held
his statements to the police were voluntary; and (2) the trial
court erred by refusing to answer a jury question.
(1) "Whether the defendant invoked his right to
counsel and whether he waived the right are primarily questions
of fact." State v. Baker, 147 Hawai#i 413, 422, 465 P.3d 860,
869 (2020) (brackets omitted). Findings of fact are reviewed
under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. Voluntariness depends
on "the totality of circumstances surrounding the defendant's
statement." Id. (brackets omitted). The de novo standard of
review applies "to the ultimate issue of the voluntariness of a
confession." Id. (cleaned up).
The trial court held a voluntariness hearing on
January 12, 2024. The court received two Maui Police Department
(MPD) waiver of rights forms into evidence. Both were signed by
Namauu. One was dated May 23, 2018, and the other was dated
May 25, 2018. The court also received CDs of MPD captain Nelson
Hamilton's interviews of Namauu on May 23 and 25, 2018.
Hamilton testified he interviewed Namauu at 7:06 p.m.
on May 23, 2018, in the MPD criminal investigation office in
Wailuku. He informed Namauu of his Miranda rights before
speaking with him. Namauu said he understood his rights, wrote
"yes" and initialed each section of the MPD form. During the
interview Namauu requested an attorney. Hamilton then stopped
the interview.
Hamilton testified he had further contact with Namauu
on May 25, 2018. Namauu was in an MPD holding cell. He was
going to be charged, so Hamilton took a bail acknowledgment form
for him to sign. Namauu said he wanted to talk about one of the
charges. Hamilton said he couldn't discuss it because Namauu had
requested a lawyer. Namauu said he wanted to talk without a
lawyer present.

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

Hamilton took Namauu to the interview room and
reinformed him of his Miranda rights, using the same procedure he
used on May 23. When they got to the part about the right to an
attorney, Namauu asked about the process to get one. Hamilton
said Namauu would either have to call one himself, or after he
was charged and went to court, "he'll be assigned an attorney and
that could take days, a week or more." Hamilton asked Namauu if
he wanted to continue, or did he want a lawyer. Namauu said he
wanted to speak without an attorney present, so they "continued
with the Miranda form." Namauu initialed each section of the MPD
form.
Namauu testified that on May 23, 2018, Hamilton told
him the charges were serious, he had to talk to him and sign
papers. Namauu said "no, let me talk to a lawyer, then we can
talk." Namauu testified that Hamilton said, "no, but all you got
to do is just talk to me and sign these papers and then we can
get you one lawyer after[.]" Namauu said, "no." Hamilton got
mad and left. He came back two days later, pulled Namauu out of
his cell, and took him to the back room with his partner. Namauu
said, "I want one lawyer for be present with me if I got to talk
to you guys." Hamilton said Namauu could have a lawyer after he
talked to them. He offered Namauu "two candies, two Cokes, and a
plate lunch."
On cross-examination, Namauu was asked whether he
agreed to speak with Hamilton without an attorney present.
Namauu stated, "[i]n a way, yes in a way . . ." He agreed he
signed the MPD Miranda forms on May 23 and May 25. He was asked,
"And that's your signature on the May 25th, 2018, indicating you
wish to waive your constitutional rights and make a statement;
right?"
Namauu answered, "Yes."
The recordings of the May 23 and May 25 interviews were
played in open court. After hearing arguments, the trial court
stated:

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

Well, the Court has listened to State's Exhibit[s] 3 and 4
[the CDs of the interviews]. The May 23rd interview, Court
will find that was made voluntarily. Mr. Namauu testified
today and in the Court's opinion was less than credible and
actually his testimony made no sense whatsoever and didn't
comport with the facts, so the Court will find Mr. Namauu's
testimony to be not credible.

The trial court found Hamilton's testimony credible.
"It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon
issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight
of evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." Fisher
v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006).
The trial court ruled:

After watching the tapes, I'm a hundred percent clear that
that discussion was not that Mr. Namauu was demanding or
asking for an attorney; it was just how the mechanics of
that would work, and Mr. Namauu did not want to wait. He
wanted to give a statement. He was told again -– you know,
he was asked if he wanted to proceed without an attorney,
and again he replied he did want to.

So I find that his statements both on the 23rd and on
the 25th were made voluntarily. I do not see any police
deception. I do not see any coercion. I did not -- from
the tapes, it did not appear that Mr. Namauu was overly
tired or intoxicated or mentally unstable. He was very
emotional on the 25th when he was giving his statement, but
I do find that the statement was given voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently after he was given his Miranda
warnings, so I will allow both statements to be entered at
the trial.

The audio on the May 23, 2018 recording and the audio
and video on the May 25, 2018 recording support the trial court's
findings. Based on our de novo review of the totality of
circumstances surrounding Namauu's statements, the trial court's
finding of voluntariness was not erroneous. Baker, 147 Hawai#i
at 422, 465 P.3d at 869.
(2) Jury communication no. 1 asked:

We would like to see the shell casings and an accurate count
on how many were found.

"It is within a trial court's discretion to answer a
request for information." State v. Chang, 50 Haw. 195, 199, 436
P.2d 3, 6 (1967).

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

There were "four shell casings and a bullet -- or a
cartridge." They were found when the gun was recovered. No
shell casings were found at the crime scene.
The trial court and counsel discussed how to respond.
Defense counsel wanted "to tell them there were no casings found
at the crime scene, but they were found -- you can tell them --
in this ice bag."
The deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) said, "we can't
actually tell them any more than what they already heard because
. . . then you're testifying."
After further discussions with counsel, the trial court
said, "I really think we run a great risk of going afoul if we
start telling them what was said in court." The court explained,
"What I'm saying is I'm going to ask the jurors to rely on their
own memory about what was said on the stand . . . regarding the
shells . . . and the casings."
There was a discussion about the shell casings being
Exhibit 52 in evidence. The court then stated, "we are agreeing
that we're going to send the casings in, and then I'm going to
instruct them to rely on their collective memories as to the
evidence adduced by the witnesses on the stand and introduced
into evidence . . . by either party."
The court recited what it would type on the jury
communication and asked, "We're in agreement then?"
Defense counsel responded, "Yeah."
The response to the jury was:

We will send in the shell casings for you to examine. You
are to rely on your collective memory as to how many were
found and where they were found.

The response was what counsel agreed to. Namauu waived
any objection to the trial court's response. Even if the point
hadn't been waived, "the trial court's answer to the jury's
question was clear, direct and proper." Chang, 50 Haw. at 199,

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

436 P.2d at 6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by
answering the jury communication as it did.
The Judgment; Conviction and Sentence entered on
April 24, 2024, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 10, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Steven Slavitt, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Renee Ishikawa Delizo, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge