CourtListener 10760161

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-DEC-2025
07:57 AM
Dkt. 78 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
IKAIKA PUA AREN AHINA, also known as AREN AHINA,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX(3))

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Ikaika Pua Aren Ahina (Ahina)
appeals from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's (Circuit
Court) 1 June 1, 2023 "**Amended** Judgment; Conviction and
Probation Sentence; Terms and Conditions of Probation; Notice of
Entry" (Judgment), entered after a jury convicted him as charged
of three counts of second-degree criminal property damage, and
he was given a probation sentence. We affirm.

1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Ahina raises three points of error,
contending that: (1) the Circuit Court erred by admitting Maui
Police Department (MPD) officer Zachary Kamaka's (Officer
Kamaka) identification testimony without a Hawaiʻi Rules of
Evidence (HRE) Rule 104 hearing; 2 (2) the Circuit Court erred by
failing to give an eyewitness jury instruction; and
(3) Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi (State) committed
prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. 3
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve the contentions as
follows.
The charges stemmed from three incidents that occurred
on October 28, November 9, and December 25, 2019 at Stillwell's
Bakery in Wailuku, Maui, involving an individual throwing rocks
at the windows of the bakery. The three incidents were caught
on surveillance video. Following each of the incidents, the
owner called the police. In the November 9, 2019 incident,
Officer Kamaka was the responding officer; in the December 25,
2019 incident, MPD detective Gregg Katayama (Detective Katayama)
was the responding officer.
The surveillance system videos of all three incidents
were provided to the police, admitted into evidence at trial,

2 HRE Rule 104 deals with preliminary questions of admissibility of
evidence that a trial court must determine. "'Preliminary questions,' in
rule 104 parlance, are issues concerning foundation facts upon which the
admissibility of evidentiary items depends." Addison M. Bowman, Hawaii Rules
of Evidence Manual § 104-1 at 1-13 (2024-25 ed.). The litigation of such
"foundation facts" is governed by HRE Rules 103 and 104(a), which "suppl[y]
the substance and procedure for rulings on 'the admissibility of evidence.'"
Id.
3 We have restated Ahina's points for clarity.

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

and published to the jury as State's Exhibit 5. Still images of
the video footage were also admitted.
The October 28, 2019 video showed an individual
wearing a black t-shirt, tan shorts, and a backpack throwing a
rock at the bakery's windows. There was no clear image of the
individual's face.
The November 9, 2019 video depicted an individual
carrying a rock, throwing the rock to crack the window of the
bakery, and walking away. The individual in the video was
wearing a tank top and shorts, had dark hair, no facial hair, no
glasses, and carried a backpack. No lower back tattoo was
visible.
The December 25, 2019 video showed an individual
wearing a tank top and shorts with dark hair, no facial hair, no
glasses, and a backpack. No lower back tattoo was visible. The
individual is depicted picking up a rock and throwing it at the
bakery windows, but the rock did not appear to cause any cracks
in the glass. After briefly looking back and noticing no
damage, the individual is shown walking away but later returning
to throw the rock at the window a second time. In the video,
the individual appears to be grinning, or smiling.
Officer Kamaka testified that on November 10, 2019, he
was sent to Stillwell's Bakery regarding a rock-throwing
incident. Officer Kamaka watched security camera footage from
the night before, November 9, 2019, and recognized the
individual in the video as Ahina, who was his "substitute
teacher from high school." The State played the November 9,
2019 video and the December 25, 2019 video in open court, and
Officer Kamaka identified Ahina as the individual in both
videos. Officer Kamaka identified physical features that made
Ahina recognizable, such as his height, his "droopy" face, and

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"bulg[ing]" eyes. Officer Kamaka remembered Ahina from high
school because of an incident where Ahina talked about a tattoo
on his lower back and pulled up his shirt to reveal it. Officer
Kamaka also stated that he had encountered Ahina on two
occasions after Officer Kamaka graduated from high school, at a
drum circle at Little Beach in Kihei, and at Triangles, an area
with multiple shops and bars. Officer Kamaka described the
interactions as casual and occurring while he was off-duty, and
testified that he had said "hi" to Ahina on both occasions.
Detective Katayama testified that he went to
Stillwell's Bakery on December 26, 2019 to follow up on a
criminal property damage case. Detective Katayama spoke with
Ahina on the phone and Ahina subsequently voluntarily came to
the Wailuku police station, where he was arrested that day.
Detective Katayama also testified, without defense objection,
that the window breaking stopped after Ahina was arrested.
Detective Katayama testified regarding Ahina's physical
appearance at the time of arrest, stating that Ahina "had hair,"
was "clean shaven[,]" and "was not wearing glasses."
(1) It appears that Ahina contends that the Circuit
Court "should have had a HRE 104 hearing" regarding Officer
Kamaka's "ability to discern who the person was in the video"
and "ability to recall facts of [Ahina] that were outside the
charged offense." Ahina claims that portions of Officer
Kamaka's trial testimony "should have been precluded under HRE
Rule 403."
Ahina's point of error purports to identify where the
error occurred by block-quoting what transpired at a hearing on
the first day of trial. The quote reflects that trial defense

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

counsel 4 only requested to "clarify" and "raise a potential 104
hearing." At the end of the quoted transcript, the Circuit
Court stated that "the oral motion is denied," but it is not
clear what "motion" the court is referring to. This block-
quoted transcript in the point does not reflect that a motion or
request for an HRE Rule 104 hearing was made, denied by the
court, and preserved as error. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) (requiring point to
state "where in the record the alleged error occurred" and
"where in the record the alleged error was objected to" or
brought to the court's attention). The related argument for
this point contains no citations to the record upon which it
relies. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring argument to provide
citations to "parts of the record relied on"). It does not
appear that Ahina provided "the necessary information to
identify [his] argument" from the "remaining sections of the
brief," including the statement of the case. See Marvin v.
Pflueger, 127 Hawaiʻi 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012).
To the extent Ahina challenges the admission of
certain aspects of Officer Kamaka's identification testimony
under HRE Rule 403, Ahina does not identify in the point or the
argument where the allegedly offending testimony occurred, where
it was objected to, and how any claimed HRE Rule 403 errors were
preserved. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii); HRAP Rule
28(b)(4)(A) (requiring "quotation of the grounds urged for the
objection and the full substance of the evidence" that was
allegedly erroneously admitted); HRE Rule 103 (requiring timely
objection to preserve evidentiary error). We do not address
this point of error.

4 The record reflects that Ahina was represented at trial by a
different defense counsel.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Ahina argues that Officer Kamaka's "viewing of the
video" and "identification of [Ahina] from that viewing," made
Officer Kamaka an eyewitness, and thus, the court should have
given eyewitness instructions to the jury.
The Circuit Court refused to provide the requested
instruction because "there were no eyewitnesses in this case[.]"
Ahina's argument lacks merit because Officer Kamaka was not an
eyewitness, where he was not at the scene of the offense and
testified to identifying Ahina from surveillance videos shortly
after the November incident occurred. The Circuit Court did not
err in refusing the eyewitness jury instruction.
(3) This point of error consists of transcript block
quotes with no accompanying contention except for a header that
asks: "In their closing arguments did the prosecutor exceed
giving fair comment and responses to legitimate comments on the
testimony or did his argument made [sic] to inflame the passions
of the jury?" In the argument, Ahina appears to challenge seven
statements in the State's closing argument and cites three cases
as his supporting legal authority: State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawaiʻi
517, 923 P.2d 934 (App. 1996); State v. Marsh, 68 Haw. 659, 728
P.2d 1301 (1986); and State v. Basham, 132 Hawaiʻi 97, 319 P.3d
1105 (2014). Ahina makes conclusory assertions that the
"[p]rosecutor bolstered the credibility of Officer Kamaka, was
an expression [sic] of the [p]rosecutor's personal view of the
credibility of [Officer] Kamaka, along with the other
inflammatory statements resulted in prosecutorial misconduct."
Ahina presents no argument or analysis explaining how the
statements ran afoul of his cited authorities and constituted
prosecutorial misconduct. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not
argued may be deemed waived."); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka,
Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appellants failed to demonstrate error because they did "not
point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that
would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their
contention").
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the June 1, 2023
Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 17, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Richard D. Gronna,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Gerald K. Enriques,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
County of Maui,
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Associate Judge