CourtListener 10704477

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2025
07:50 AM
Dkt. 110 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
KEKOA PICHE, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Kekoa Piche appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and
Probation Sentence entered by the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit on July 24, 2024.1 We affirm.
Piche was charged by felony information with Burglary
in the First Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 708-810(1)(c), which provides:

(1) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first
degree if the person intentionally enters or remains
unlawfully in a building, with intent to commit therein a
crime against a person or against property rights, and:

. . . .
(c) The person recklessly disregards a risk that the
building is the dwelling of another, and the
building is such a dwelling.

HRS § 708-810 (2014).

1
The Honorable Timothy E. Ho presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The felony information alleged that Piche entered TC
and RC's dwelling on April 3, 2024, intending to commit a crime
against a person or property rights. Piche pleaded not guilty.
A jury found Piche guilty of the included offense of
Criminal Trespass in the First Degree. He was sentenced to one
year in prison, consecutive to the sentence imposed in JIMS
No. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.2 This appeal followed.
Piche contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting
evidence of a kitchen knife; (2) refusing to instruct the jury on
the included offense of simple trespass; and (3) imposing
consecutive sentences.
(1) Piche moved in limine to preclude "reference to or
depiction of [TC]'s kitchen knife, which was allegedly found on
the ground near the door[.]" He cited Rules 401 and 403, Hawaii
Rules of Evidence, Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016)
(HRE). The motion was denied.
At trial, the State asked TC if she noticed "whether
anything was misplaced" on the night in question.
TC answered, "Yes, we did. We noticed that there was a
knife missing from our knife block in the kitchen."
The State asked if she found the knife.
TC answered, "We did. We found it on the lanai."
The State handed a photograph, marked as Exhibit 10 for
identification, to TC and asked her what it was.
TC said it was "a butcher knife from our butcher block,
ah, laying on the -- the ground of the lanai." She said "it's
the brand of knives that we own and it matches the rest of our
set."
The State asked TC "is State's Exhibit 10 a fair and
accurate depiction of the knife as you found it on April 3rd,
2024, at about 9:30 p.m.?"

2
In the 2023 case, Piche pleaded guilty to Terroristic Threatening
in the Second Degree. On March 6, 2024, he was sentenced to one year
probation. He was resentenced to one year in prison after inexcusably failing
to comply with the terms and conditions of probation.

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

TC answered, "Yes, it is."
The State then offered Exhibit 10 into evidence.
Piche objected based on HRE Rules 401 and 403.
The trial court admitted Exhibit 10 over Piche's
objection.
(a) HRE Rule 401 defines "relevant evidence" as
"evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
Under HRE Rule 402, relevant evidence is generally admissible,
while evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. We review
whether evidence is relevant under the right/wrong standard.
State v. Kato, 147 Hawai#i 478, 489, 465 P.3d 925, 936 (2020)
(emphasis added).
Exhibit 10, which showed the knife on the ground
outside TC's house next to the sliding door, was relevant because
it illustrated TC's testimony, which tended to show that Piche
had taken the knife from inside TC's dwelling and dropped or left
it outside as he left the dwelling.
Relevance was reinforced by TC's later testimony that
she last saw the knife in the knife block on her kitchen counter
earlier in the day, she didn't put the knife where it was shown
in Exhibit 10, and she hadn't seen RC or their children put it
there, either.
(b) HRE Rule 403 allows a trial court to exclude
relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury[.]" "Unfair prejudice" means the
evidence would tend "to influence the trial result in a forbidden
or otherwise improper way." State v. Timas, 82 Hawai#i 499, 511,
923 P.2d 916, 928 (App. 1996). We review a trial court's HRE
Rule 403 rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Feliciano,
149 Hawai#i 365, 372, 489 P.3d 1277, 1284 (2021).
Piche argued, "Obviously a knife being found is going
to, ah, potentially scare the jurors, um, into just wanting to

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

convict based on the scariness of finding a knife." Exhibit 10
showed a common chef's knife. There was no blood on the knife.
The knife was lying on the ground, not embedded into a person or
object. The trial court acted within its discretion by
overruling Piche's HRE Rule 403 objection.
(2) Piche was charged with Burglary in the First
Degree. The trial court granted Piche's request for a jury
instruction on the included offense of Criminal Trespass in the
First Degree, HRS § 708-813(1)(a):

(1) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass in
the first degree if:
(a) That person knowingly enters or remains
unlawfully:
(i) In a dwelling[.]

HRS § 708-813 (2014).
Piche also requested a jury instruction on the included
offense of Simple Trespass, HRS § 708-815:

(1) A person commits the offense of simple trespass if the
person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon
premises.

HRS § 708-815 (2014).
The trial court refused the instruction.
"Jury instructions on lesser-included offenses must be
given where there is a rational basis in the evidence for a
verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and
convicting the defendant of the included offense." State v.
Angei, 152 Hawai#i 484, 492, 526 P.3d 461, 469 (2023).
Piche testified at trial. He agreed he walked through
a residential area with many houses. He stopped "on the outside
of the corner of [TC's] house. On the outside of the fence." He
knew it was a house. The garage was closed. The gate wasn't
latched. He opened it, went through the yard, and got to the
sliding glass door. He opened the door and went inside the
house. He went upstairs. He went into the bathroom. He went

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

into the bedroom. He saw a person sleeping in a bed. He went
into the baby's room. He saw a baby in a crib. He went
downstairs. He saw a child with a pacifier in its mouth. He
followed the child into the living room, where he saw TC. She
started screaming. She "was screaming and kicking and then just
basically doing what a woman does when -- when they get frantic.
She's just throwing -- just going crazy." She kicked him, but it
didn't hurt. He turned and left. He left through the same
sliding door he entered from. He knew he didn't have the
residents' permission to enter the house. He explained:

What I mean by that is I understand what you’re
telling me that I'm unlawfully entering to someone's home.
What I'm telling you is I didn't get that permission, so
you’re right in articulating that.

What I'm saying is that's not wrong because the Lord
sent me there.

The difference between Criminal Trespass in the First
Degree and Simple Trespass is the former must involve a
"dwelling" while the latter applies to any "premises."
"Dwelling" means "a building which is used or usually used by a
person for lodging." HRS § 708-800 (2014). "'Premises' includes
any building and any real property." Id. Piche's testimony
established that he knew he was entering someone's house without
the occupant's permission. There was no basis for a reasonable
juror to conclude that what Piche entered was not a dwelling.
The trial court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on
Simple Trespass. See Angei, 152 Hawai#i at 496, 526 P.3d at 473.
(3) Piche was sentenced to one year in prison,
consecutive to the sentence imposed in another case. A
sentencing court may order terms of imprisonment to run
concurrently or consecutively. State v. Kong, 131 Hawai#i 94,
101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013). We review sentencing decisions
for "plain and manifest abuse of discretion[.]" Id.
The sentencing court "must state on the record at the
time of sentencing the reasons for imposing a consecutive

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

sentence." State v. Bautista, 153 Hawai#i 284, 290, 535 P.3d
1029, 1035 (2023). Here, the trial court appropriately discussed
the HRS § 706-606 factors before imposing the consecutive
sentences, including Piche's "long history of criminality"; his
resuming the use of "illicit drugs on a daily basis"; the
revocation of his supervised release and probation; and the need
"to reflect the seriousness of this offense, promote respect for
the law and provide just punishment for this offense. . . . [and]
afford adequate deterrence of criminal conduct and to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant."
Piche argues the trial court impermissibly "suggested
that the jury would have convicted Piche of a felony if different
charges or jury instructions had been presented." The court's
comment may have been an inartful reference to the severity of
the offense — one of the factors for consideration under HRS
§ 706-606. In any event, the court gave independent, sufficient
reasons for imposing consecutive terms based on its analysis of
several HRS § 706-606 factors. The court did not abuse its
discretion by sentencing Piche to consecutive terms of
imprisonment.
The Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence
entered on July 24, 2024, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
William H. Jameson, Jr., Presiding Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
State of Hawai#i, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Robert T. Nakatsuji, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.