CourtListener 10800427

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-FEB-2026
08:56 AM
Dkt. 91 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT A.C. MIDEL, Defendant-Appellant.

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Robert A.C. Midel appeals from the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit's 1 September 25, 2024 Judgment

of Conviction and Sentence, convicting him of Murder in the

Second Degree, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)

§§ 706-656 (2014), 707-701.5 (2014).

On appeal, Midel contends the circuit court erred by

(1) failing to ensure he knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and denying his

1 The Honorable Faʻauuga L. Toʻotoʻo presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

motion to set aside that waiver (points of error (POE) 1 and 2);

(2) failing to ensure he knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his right to testify (POE 3); and (3) denying

his motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial and

Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48 2 rights (POE 4).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

2 HRPP Rule 48 provides in pertinent part:

Rule 48. Dismissal.

(a) By prosecutor. The prosecutor may by leave of court
file a dismissal of a charge and the prosecution shall
thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed
during the trial without the consent of the defendant.

(b) By court. Except in the case of traffic offenses
that are not punishable by imprisonment, the court shall,
on motion of the defendant, dismiss the charge, with or
without prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not
commenced within 6 months:

(1) from the date of arrest if bail is set or from the
filing of the charge, whichever is sooner, on any offense
based on the same conduct or arising from the same
criminal episode for which the arrest or charge was made;
or

(2) from the date of re-arrest or re-filing of the
charge, in cases where an initial charge was dismissed
upon motion of the defendant; or

(3) from the date of mistrial, order granting a new
trial or remand, in cases where such events require a new
trial.

Clauses (b)(1) and (b)(2) shall not be applicable to any
offense for which the arrest was made or the charge was
filed prior to the effective date of the rule.

. . . .

(Formatting altered.)

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

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below and affirm.

Vincent Vanterpool testified that on August 18, 2018,

he worked for Securitas as a security officer and resided at the

Nuʻuanu YMCA. At about 2:15 a.m., Vanterpool observed Midel and

Ryan Cavalear in a hallway "punching each other." As Vanterpool

approached Midel and Cavalear, Midel "did a right-hand swing

towards [Cavalear], and [Cavalear's] legs locked up, and

[Cavalear] fell over." Midel turned around, and Vanterpool saw

"a large black knife" in Midel's right hand. Vanterpool heard

Midel "mention[] everybody there was magical, which [Vanterpool]

thought was strange." Midel then "looked down at [Cavalear] and

said, I can't leave him like this, he's still alive" and pushed

the knife into Cavalear's neck. Cavalear died.

In October 2018, the State filed a superseding

indictment charging Midel for Murder in the Second Degree in

Case No. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX. Midel moved to dismiss for violation

of HRPP Rule 48; the circuit court granted Midel's motion and

dismissed the superseding indictment without prejudice.

In October 2019, the State reindicted Midel for Murder

in the Second Degree in the proceeding underlying this appeal.

The State moved to set a firm trial week and informed the

circuit court that the former Chief Medical Examiner for the

City and County of Honolulu, Dr. Christopher Happy (Dr. Happy),

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

was a necessary witness but now resided on the continent. The

State noted that HRPP Rule 48 "runs on March 30, 2020."

A jury trial was scheduled for the week of January 6,

2020. Midel, against his counsel's advice, waived his right to

a jury trial. The circuit court set a new trial week beginning

March 23, 2020.

On March 16, 2020, days before the scheduled trial,

the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that all ongoing trials would

be postponed until after April 30, 2020, due to the COVID-19

pandemic. In re Judiciary's Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak,

SCMF-XX-XXXXXXX, docket #1, filed Mar. 16, 2020.

The circuit court rescheduled Midel's trial from

March 23, 2020, to May 4, 2020.

On April 27, 2020, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court entered an

order prohibiting persons from entering judiciary facilities if

they had traveled in the prior fourteen days. In re Judiciary's

Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak, SCMF-XX-XXXXXXX, docket #19,

filed Apr. 27, 2020. The parties agreed to continue the trial

to June 29, 2020.

A bench trial was held on June 29 and 30, 2020. At

the conclusion of proceedings on June 30, the State indicated it

had one more witness to present, Dr. Happy. The circuit court

recessed and scheduled a status conference to discuss when

Dr. Happy would be able to return to Hawaiʻi to testify.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On August 10, 2020, at the status conference, the

parties discussed resuming trial the week of October 12, 2020.

The State disclosed that Dr. Happy was willing to test for

COVID-19 to return to testify, but that if a two-week quarantine

requirement for incoming travelers was reimposed, Dr. Happy

would not come and the State would request another continuance.

On October 15, 2020, the circuit court continued the

trial from October 29, 2020, to November 17, 2020.

On October 22, 2020, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued

an order allowing persons who had traveled in the prior fourteen

days to enter judiciary facilities if they tested negative for

COVID-19 within seventy-two hours from the final leg of

departure. In re Judiciary's Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak,

SCMF-XX-XXXXXXX, docket #69, filed Oct. 22, 2020.

On November 16, 2020, trial was continued again to

December 29, 2020.

On December 29, 2020, the State was not ready to

proceed and requested a three-month continuance. The State

indicated that, in order to fly in to testify on December 29,

2020, Dr. Happy was required to take a COVID-19 test on

Christmas Day, but the State was unable to secure an appointment

that day or to guarantee that the results would be received on

time. The deputy prosecuting attorney further informed the

circuit court that a new deputy would be assigned to complete

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

the trial, though that was not the reason for the requested

continuance. Midel's counsel stated, "[w]e understand [HRPP]

Rule 48 does not apply. . . . But we are objecting to any

continuance, especially three months." Over Midel's objection,

the circuit court continued the trial to March 25, 2021.

On March 25, 2021, Dr. Happy testified, and the State

rested its case-in-chief. Midel waived his right to testify,

exercised his right not to testify, and rested without

presenting any witnesses or evidence.

On May 26, 2021, Midel moved to dismiss the indictment

for violation of his speedy trial and HRPP Rule 48 rights

(Motion to Dismiss).

On June 17, 2021, the circuit court denied Midel's

Motion to Dismiss, found Midel guilty of second-degree murder,

and scheduled sentencing for September 15, 2021.

On August 2, 2021, Midel filed a Motion to Appoint

Three Qualified Examiners pursuant to HRS § 704-404

(Supp. 2020), which was granted. 3 Of the three examiner reports,

two opined Midel was not fit to proceed, and the third opined

that he was.

3 The Honorable Christine E. Kuriyama presided over the hearings
pertaining to Midel's fitness to proceed.

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

On January 13, 2022, the circuit court found that

Midel was not fit to proceed and committed Midel to the custody

of the State Director of Health.

On March 21, 2022, the Hawaiʻi State Hospital requested

that the circuit court appoint a panel to reassess Midel's

"current fitness to proceed," noting that Midel did "not appear

to be experiencing symptoms of a mental disease, disorder or

defect." The circuit court granted Hawaiʻi State Hospital's

request, and later received three examiner reports, all opining

that Midel was fit to proceed. The circuit court found Midel

fit to proceed.

On July 18, 2023, Midel filed a Motion to Set Aside

Waiver of Jury Trial. Following a hearing, the circuit court

denied Midel's motion.

On September 25, 2024, the circuit court sentenced

Midel to life in prison with the possibility of parole and

ordered restitution.

Midel timely appealed.

(1) First, Midel contends the circuit court erred by

failing to ensure he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

waived his right to a jury trial and by denying his motion to

set aside that waiver.

"It is well established that Hawaiʻi law recognizes the

right to a jury trial as a fundamental right." State v. Torres,
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

144 Hawaiʻi 282, 288, 439 P.3d 234, 240 (2019) (footnote

omitted). "This right cannot be relinquished absent a knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary waiver." Id.

Defendants carry "the burden of demonstrating by a

preponderance of the evidence that [their] waiver was

involuntary." State v. Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawaiʻi 465, 469, 312

P.3d 897, 901 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). We note that Midel does not point to where in the

record he objected to the circuit court's colloquy as

insufficient. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring appellants to state "where in the

record the alleged error was objected to").

(a) Midel argues the circuit erroneously found his

waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

"A waiver is knowing and intelligent when it is made

with full awareness of both the nature of the right being

abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it."

Torres, 144 Hawaiʻi at 288, 439 P.3d at 240 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).

To determine whether a waiver is knowing and

intelligent, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has advised trial courts

to conduct a Duarte-Higareda colloquy, which informs the

defendant that: "(1) twelve members of the community compose a

jury, (2) the defendant may take part in jury selection, (3) a
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

jury verdict must be unanimous, and (4) the court alone decides

guilt or innocence if the defendant waives a jury trial." Id.

(citing U.S. v. Duarte-Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir.

1997)).

"A waiver is voluntary when it was the product of a

free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion,

or deception." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

Here, the circuit court's questions tracked the

Duarte-Higareda colloquy. The circuit court explained that

Midel and his "lawyer and prosecutor will help select 12 people

from the community"; "all those 12 people must . . . unanimously

agree that [he is] guilty"; and "[he is] now asking the court to

listen to the evidence in [his] case and then the court will

decide whether [he is] guilty or not guilty based on the

evidence[.]" After each advisement, Midel indicated he

understood. Thus, Midel's waiver was knowing and intelligent.

The circuit court also asked whether anyone was

forcing Midel to waive his right to a jury trial or "making

[him] any promises." He responded no. Midel's responses

indicate his waiver was voluntary.

(b) Midel argues that the circuit court's colloquy

failed to consider his history of mental illness (a "salient

fact"), which the circuit court was apprised of through the

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pretrial bail report in Case No. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX that was

dismissed. "Salient facts, such as mental illness or language

barriers, require that a court effectively engage the defendant

in a dialogue that will effectuate the rationale behind the

colloquy and the on-the-record waiver requirements." State v.

Chong Hung Han, 130 Hawaiʻi 83, 92, 306 P.3d 128, 137 (2013)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing salient facts in

the context of waiving the right to testify or not to testify).

The circuit court began its colloquy by asking if

Midel took any medication, was under a doctor's care, or

consumed alcohol that morning. Midel answered no to all three

questions.

The circuit court then asked Midel if his mind was

clear that morning. Midel answered yes. The circuit court

continued by asking questions to determine whether Midel

understood his right to a jury trial. Midel's responses show he

understood. The circuit court's questions were pertinent to

ascertaining whether Midel's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent.

Nothing in the dialogue indicates that Midel's

responses were inappropriate or incoherent. Nothing in the

dialogue raises concerns regarding Midel's mental health.

And although Midel claims the pretrial bail report in

Case No. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX should have alerted the circuit court

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to the possibility of mental health concerns, Midel does not

explain how an eighteen-month-old pretrial bail report would

have indicated he was suffering from mental health issues at the

time he waived his right to a jury trial in this case.

Also, Midel appeared with counsel, who indicated she

advised him against giving up his right to a jury trial. In

light of counsel's contrary advice, the circuit court decided to

ask Midel more questions to ascertain whether Midel understood

his right to a jury trial and his waiver of that right. Nothing

from that conversation indicated that mental health was a

salient fact during that waiver.

conduct any meaningful dialogue as it required only yes or no

responses and the dialogue was "more akin to an advisory or a

lecture, as opposed to a thorough colloquy."

A "true" colloquy "consists of a verbal exchange

between the judge and the defendant in which the judge

ascertains the defendant's understanding of the proceedings and

of the defendant's rights." State v. Celestine, 142 Hawaiʻi 165,

170, 415 P.3d 907, 912 (2018) (internal quotation marks,

emphasis, and citation omitted) (examining a true colloquy in

the context of the rights to testify and not to testify).

After almost each explanation, the circuit court asked

Midel if he understood and allowed Midel to answer. Contrary to

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Midel's assertion, the transcript does not reflect the circuit

court merely lectured Midel. And Midel does not proffer

suggested questions that would have rendered the colloquy a

"truer" colloquy.

In sum, Midel fails to meet his burden of showing, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that his waiver was involuntary

or that his substantial rights were affected. Moreover, for the

reasons discussed, the circuit court did not err by denying

Midel's motion to set aside the waiver of his right to a jury

trial.

(2) Midel next challenges the waiver of his right to

testify. As with his arguments regarding his waiver of his

right to a jury trial, Midel argues "the circuit court merely

read a lengthy advisement without engaging [him] in any

meaningful dialogue or discussion after each segment was covered

or pausing to ensure understanding [of] each aspect of the jury

trial." Midel also argues his "history of mental health

presented a 'salient fact' that should have prompted the circuit

court to ask additional questions to verify that [he] truly

understood the right that he was waiving." (Emphasis omitted.)

"Hawaiʻi law has historically protected both the right

to testify and the right not to testify." Id. at 169, 415 P.3d

at 911. To protect these rights, the trial court must conduct

an on-the-record colloquy. Id. at 169-70, 415 P.3d at 911-12.

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

As stated above, a colloquy must be a true colloquy. Id. at

170, 415 P.3d at 912.

As to Midel's argument that the court did not engage

in a meaningful dialogue or pause to ensure his understanding,

the record shows that the court paused consistently to ascertain

Midel's understanding. The court also invited Midel to ask

questions and to take his time. Contrary to Midel's argument,

the circuit court's colloquy was meaningful.

As to Midel's argument that the circuit court failed

to consider the "salient fact" of his "history of mental

health," Midel does not point to anywhere in the proceedings

prior to the waiver of his right to testify where the court

should have been on notice that Midel's mental health was a

salient fact during that waiver. See State v. Adler, 108 Hawaiʻi

169, 178, 118 P.3d 652, 661 (2005) (explaining appellants bear

"the burden to show error by reference to matters in the record"

and courts are "not obligated to sift through the voluminous

record to verify an appellant's inadequately documented

contentions" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

In sum, Midel failed to show that the circuit court's

colloquy affected his substantial rights.

(3) Finally, Midel challenges the denial of his

Motion to Dismiss. Citing State v. Alkire, Midel argues that

his "trial did not 'meaningfully' commence on June 29, 2020,"
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

because "the State had no intention of completing the trial on

June 29, June 30, or soon thereafter." See 148 Hawaiʻi 73, 87,

468 P.3d 87, 101 (2020).

In Alkire, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained that

"HRPP Rule 48 requires a 'meaningful' commencement of trial."

Id. at 87, 468 P.3d at 101. "[A] trial is 'meaningfully'

commenced when a trial court has 'reasonably' committed its

resources to the trial, which also requires that the parties be

ready to proceed." Id.

The State moved to set a firm trial week and informed

the circuit court that Dr. Happy was a necessary witness but now

resided on the continent. Trial was ultimately postponed due to

events related to COVID-19.

Trial commenced on June 29, 2020. Except for

Dr. Happy, the circuit court heard testimony from all of the

State's witnesses over the first two days, including:

(1) Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Paul Acquavella,

(2) HPD Sergeant Darryl Jones, (3) HPD Evidence Specialist

Michael Lynch, (4) HPD Detective Jason Malacas, (5) HPD Evidence

Specialist Hideko Yoshihara, (6) Jorge Santos, (7) Vincent

Vanterpool, (8) HPD Officer Che-Wai Lau, (9) Dr. Matthew Koenig,

(10) HPD Officer Steven Lee, (11) HPD Evidence Specialist

Brittany Copp, (12) HPD Officer Christopher Chong, (13) HPD

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Evidence Specialist Garrick Baligad, (14) HPD Criminalist

Michelle Amorin, and (15) Quintin Iriarte.

And although Dr. Happy's ability (and willingness) to

travel was hampered by COVID-19 restrictions, the State was

otherwise ready to proceed, and the circuit court had reasonably

committed its resources to trial.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we

decline to vacate Midel's conviction under Alkire. See id.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

September 25, 2024 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 25, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
James S. Tabe,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
Brian R. Vincent,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.