CourtListener 10875961

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JUN-2026
07:59 AM
Dkt. 103 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SONNY E. PUERTO, Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Defendant-Appellant Sonny E. Puerto (Puerto)
challenges his conviction for first-degree Electronic Enticement
of a Child. 1 We affirm.
Puerto appeals from the Circuit Court of the Third
Circuit's (Circuit Court) 2 February 6, 2025 "Judgment of

1 A person is guilty of electronic enticement of a child in the
first degree under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-756 (2014) if the
person "[i]ntentionally or knowingly communicates" while using an electronic
device, "[w]ith another person who represents that person to be under the age
of eighteen years[,]" "[w]ith the intent to promote or facilitate the
commission of a felony[,]" and "[i]ntentionally or knowingly travels to the
agreed upon meeting place at the agreed upon meeting time[.]"
2 The Honorable Peter K. Kubota presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Conviction and Sentence" (Judgment), which sentenced him to a
ten-year term of incarceration. Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawaiʻi (State)'s charge of Puerto with Electronic Enticement of
a Child in the First Degree stemmed from "Operation Keiki
Shield," intended to "identify" and "apprehend individuals who
are willing to travel in order to engage" in sexual activity
with children. As part of the operation, an undercover agent
posed as a 13-year-old female and exchanged sexually explicit
messages with Puerto on a Meet Me application and text, during
which Puerto agreed to meet with the minor and was subsequently
arrested at the designated meeting place.
On appeal, Puerto raises five points of error (POEs),
as follows: (1) the Circuit Court's failure to suppress
additional statements Puerto made, the contents of a brown paper
bag, and evidence from Puerto's cell phone; (2) the Circuit
Court's denial of Puerto's during-trial Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal (MJOA) and post-trial MJOA; (3) the Circuit Court's
ruling that Puerto's texted statements to the undercover agent
were made voluntarily; (4) prosecutorial misconduct in the
"closing/rebuttal arguments"; and (5) the Circuit Court's denial
of Puerto's post-verdict motion for mistrial. 3
(1) Regarding the suppression of additional statements
Puerto made, Puerto contends the "block information" or "basic
identification questions[,]" which included Puerto's cell

3 Puerto's Amended Opening Brief does not comply with Hawaiʻi Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) and (b)(7), and contains a
combined POE section and argument section. The POEs do not clearly or
consistently cite the record identifying where the alleged errors occurred
and where the alleged errors were "brought to the attention of the court or
agency." See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii). While HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)
provides that "[p]oints not presented in accordance with this section will be
disregarded," we will address the POEs for which the remainder of the brief
provides the necessary information to identify Puerto's arguments under the
public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. See Marvin v.
Pflueger, 127 Hawaiʻi 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012).

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

number, should have also been suppressed. The State responds
that this request to suppress "block information" was not made
below and should be waived.
The record of the March 6, 2024 suppression hearing
reflects that Puerto did not request the suppression of such
"block information," and Puerto's argument is waived. See State
v. Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) ("As a
general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,
that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal[.]"
(citations omitted)).
Regarding the suppression of the brown paper bag
contents through "Detective Kagimoto" and evidence from Puerto's
cell phone, Puerto's Amended Opening Brief does not indicate
whether the evidence of the paper bag contents and his cell
phone content for which suppression was denied, was admitted
against him at trial. The State claims that because these items
were never admitted at trial, any such alleged error was
harmless. This argument is persuasive. Because Puerto has not
indicated that the above-referenced evidence he challenged in
his motion to suppress was actually used and admitted against
him at trial, any purported error is harmless. See State v.
Apo, 82 Hawaiʻi 394, 403, 922 P.2d 1007, 1016 (App. 1996) ("The
admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial
following the erroneous denial of a motion to suppress is
subject to the harmless error rule." (citation omitted)).
(2) Puerto points to an alleged lack of evidence and
allegedly improperly admitted evidence to argue that his MJOA
should have been granted, because the State "did not establish
adequate evidence" of Puerto's "intent to meet with the supposed
minor for the purpose of committing a felony or other crime";

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

and because the text messages should have been suppressed for
"lack of foundation" during trial.
We review the denial of an MJOA using the same
standard a trial court applies, of whether, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution and in full
recognition of the province of the trier of fact, the evidence
is sufficient to support a prima facie case so that a reasonable
mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Angei, 152 Hawaiʻi 484, 492, 526 P.3d 461, 469 (2023).
Here, the record reflects evidence sufficient to
support a prima facie case for a reasonable mind to fairly
conclude that Puerto agreed to meet the undercover agent, who
was posing as a 13-year-old minor, after exchanging sexually
explicit messages 4 with the requisite "intent to promote or
facilitate the commission of a felony" of first-degree or third-
degree sexual assault under HRS §§ 707-730(1) and/or 707-732(1). 5
See id. As such, the denials of the MJOAs were not erroneous.
(3) Puerto challenges both the Circuit Court's ruling
that Puerto's statements in his text messages to the undercover
agent were voluntary, and the timing and circumstances of the
ruling. Puerto argues that the Circuit Court erred when it "did
not fully decide" the admissibility of the text messages "until

4 The messages included Puerto: stating that he had "condoms at
home"; asking the minor if she was "down to hook up" and stating that she
could "suck" his "dick" and he could "eat" her "pussy"; and asking the minor
if she was a "virgin" and stating that he was "Filipino" and "[n]ot too big."
5 HRS § 707-730(1)(b) (2014 & 2021 Supp.) provides that a person
"commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree" if a person
"[k]knowingly engages in sexual penetration with a person who is less than
fourteen years old[.]"

HRS § 707-732(1)(b) (2014 & 2021 Supp.) provides that a person
"commits the offense of sexual assault in the third degree" if a person
"[k]nowingly subjects to sexual contact a person who is less than fourteen
years old or causes such a person to have sexual contact with the actor[.]"

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

just prior to [the undercover agent] taking the stand"; and it
did not allow Puerto "proper notice" to "properly respond" when
it "allowed the State" to "make an oral motion." The State
responds that Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 12(b)
allows pretrial motions to be "written or oral at the discretion
of the judge"; it filed a memorandum "addressing this issue well
in advance, on June 12, 2024"; and that Puerto "cannot complain"
he was "unprepared to respond," where Puerto also "raised the
issue in his motion in limine to exclude the text messages[.]"
Here, Puerto cites no authority that required the
State file a written HRE Rule "104/404(b)" motion prior to
trial. See HRPP Rule 12(b) ("Motions may be written or oral at
the discretion of the judge."). The record reflects that the
State did raise the issue of the admissibility of Puerto's
statements to the undercover agent as early as June 12, 2024, in
its Motion to Determine Voluntariness. Puerto also raised an
issue regarding "[s]tatements" made by Puerto "to police or
others" in his June 21, 2024 Motion in Limine. The Circuit
Court deferred a final ruling on the admissibility of the text
messages until trial, which it had the discretion to do, and the
ruling was made on July 24, 2024, during the undercover agent's
trial testimony. See HRPP Rule 12(e) (conferring discretion
upon the trial court to order that a ruling on a pretrial motion
not determined before trial may "be deferred for determination
at the trial" or "after verdict").
As for Puerto's challenge to the Circuit Court's
ruling that his text messages were voluntarily made, Puerto does
not present argument as to why the text messages between him and
the undercover agent were not made "voluntarily." See HRAP Rule
28(b)(7). Rather, it appears that Puerto is arguing that his
"foundation objection" should have been "sustained" because the

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

State failed to lay foundation that Puerto was the actual sender
of the text messages. Puerto presents no legal authority
regarding his lack-of-foundation argument, however, and we do
not address it. See id.
(4) Puerto argues there were three instances of
prosecutorial misconduct during closing and rebuttal argument,
as follows: (a) the prosecutor's reference to "Smirnoff Ice and
Starburst when that information was not properly in evidence";
(b) the prosecutor's statement, "Entrapment? Really?" which
improperly discredited Puerto's credibility; and (c) the
prosecutor's improper burden shifting of "the elements/
requirements of entrapment."
As to the "Smirnoff" and "Starburst" references, the
record reflects that the text messages between Puerto and the
undercover agent, in evidence as State's Exhibit 134,
specifically mention "Smirnoff" and "Starbust." Puerto's
argument that these references were not in evidence and thus
improper, lacks merit.
As to the second prosecutorial misconduct contention,
Puerto asserts: "[t]he prosecutor's argument of 'Entrapment,
[r]rreeeaaalllyyy' amounted to misconduct and an impermissible
attack of defense counsel's character/credulity [sic]." Citing
State v. Cardona, 155 Hawaiʻi 23, 556 P.3d 369 (2024), Puerto
argues that the prosecutor's rebuttal, which started with
"Entrapment, rrreeeaaalllyyy?" constituted prosecutorial
misconduct because "such commentary by the prosecutor served
only to challenge [Puerto's] credibility." We note that
Puerto's claim that the words were stated "with an exaggerated
tone and drawing out the word really" is not reflected in the
transcript, which states: "Entrapment? Really?" The record
does not include any audio. Thus, Puerto's argument regarding

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

the prosecutor's tone and the drawn-out "really" as improper
"commentary by the prosecutor" is not supported by the written
transcription record provided for our review.
As to the final burden-shifting contention, Puerto
specifically points to pages 35-40 of the July 30, 2024 trial
transcript to support his argument that:

[d]uring her rebuttal closing, the prosecutor improperly
burden shifted the elements/requirements of entrapment by
arguing/implying to the jury that it was Defendant's burden
to prove the two elements of entrapment beyond a reasonable
doubt, as opposed to Defendant's burden to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that entrapment may have
existed and then for the State to have to disprove that
evidence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Puerto does not identify the exact statement(s) by the
prosecutor in these six pages that allegedly constitute improper
burden-shifting that "it was [Puerto]'s burden to prove the two
elements of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to
. . . by a preponderance of evidence." From our review of these
six pages, the only statement that appears to reference a burden
of proof for the entrapment defense is the following: "The
State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was not entrapped." Puerto presents no argument or legal
authority addressing how this single statement that corresponds
to his POE constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. See HRAP Rule
28(b)(7).
(5) Puerto advances two arguments challenging the
denial of the motion for mistrial. We conclude both are waived.
First, Puerto argues that the detective's testimony
"concerning the contents of the brown paper bag" "required a
mistrial because it prejudiced [Puerto] and tainted the minds of
the jurors" despite the curative instruction the Circuit Court
gave. Puerto contends that his assertion in this regard is

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"supported" by a juror's "audio message sent to [defense
counsel]" that was "admitted into evidence post-trial," which
indicated that "the jury did consider the alcohol and candy" and
"[i]t was a problem." Puerto's characterization of the
"problem" lacks sufficient explanation and context, and is
difficult to follow. The State responds that Puerto's
contention in this regard should be waived for lack of any
record references regarding where the alleged error occurred and
how it was preserved; and that even if not waived, the record
already contains evidence of text messages about Puerto
purchasing alcohol and candy, even without the detective's
testimony. We agree that this argument is waived for lack of
record references required under HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) and (b)(7).
In any event, as noted supra, the references to the "Smirnoff"
alcohol and "Starburst" candy are already in the trial evidence,
within the text messages in Exhibit 134.
Puerto's second argument regarding the mistrial motion
is that the State "fail[ed] to disclose and turn over evidence
allegedly collected from [Puerto]'s cell phone." Puerto claims
that the State "violate[d] the State's . . . duty to disclose
discovery" to Puerto, where Detective Kagimoto testified that
the police "received an external hard drive." The State
contends that Puerto's argument "was not presented to the
[C]ircuit [C]ourt at all[.]" We note that Puerto provides no
record references for where and how he preserved this alleged
error. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). The record does not appear
to reflect that Puerto raised this argument below, and it is
waived. See Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi at 456, 77 P.3d at 947.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Circuit
Court's February 6, 2025 Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 16, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Matthew A. Sylva,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Nathan A. Wersal,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Hawai‘i, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge