In re: G.M.

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000604
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-MAY-2025 07:49 AM Dkt. 55 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE INTEREST OF G.M.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-J NO. 0117290)

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

Minor-Appellant GM appeals from the August 17, 2022

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Order Denying

Reconsideration), the July 27, 2022 Decree re: Law Violation

Petition(s) (Decree), and challenges the November 18, 2022

Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Amended

FOFs/COLs), which were entered by the Family Court of the First

Circuit (Family Court) in favor of the State of Hawai#i (State).1

On October 4, 2021, the State filed a Petition by

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (Petition) alleging that GM committed

the offense of Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-841(1)(a) (2014) (Robbery

1 The Honorable Natasha R. Shaw presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Second).2 After a trial, the Family Court found that the State

proved each element of Robbery Second beyond a reasonable doubt

and adjudicated GM as a law violator. GM filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, arguing that the Family Court erred in finding

GM guilty of Robbery Second because JD's testimony exonerated

GM.3 At the hearing on the motion, GM made the additional

argument that the State had not presented sufficient evidence

that he was an accomplice because although GM was present, "he

did not take any steps or any conduct which would have assisted [Gia and Sam] in committing the offense of robbery." The Family

Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, upholding its

finding that GM was an accomplice to the robbery.

GM raises a single point of error on appeal, contending

that the evidence was insufficient to support the Family Court's

conclusion that GM was an accomplice to robbery and its finding

2 HRS § 708-841 provides as follows: § 708-841 Robbery in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the second degree if, in the course of committing theft or non-consensual taking of a motor vehicle: (a) The person uses force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance;

(b) The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone who is present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property; or (c) The person recklessly inflicts serious bodily injury upon another. (2) Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony. 3 As this case involves multiple minors, and in some instances last names are not in the record, initials or first names are used.

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

that he was a law violator. GM challenges FOFs 43 and 47, as

well as COLs 52 and 53, in conjunction with this argument.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve GM's

point of error as follows:

GM argues that even in the light most favorable to the

State, the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the

Family Court to conclude that GM was an accomplice to the robbery

because he neither aided Gia's robbery of JD nor did he attempt

to do so. GM points to the fact that when Gia punched JD off the

hoverboard and patted down his pockets, GM's attention was

focused on CG, and he did not demand JD's property, and he did

not tell JD that if he were to attempt to retrieve his property,

they would mob him.

HRS § 702-222 (2014) provides: § 702-222 Liability for conduct of another; complicity. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:

(1) With the intention of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, the person:

(a) Solicits the other person to commit it; (b) Aids or agrees or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it; or

(c) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make reasonable effort so to do; or (2) The person's conduct is expressly declared by law to establish the person's complicity.

"Mere presence at the scene of an offense or knowledge

that an offense is being committed, without more, does not make a

person an accomplice to that offense." State v. Acker, 133

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

Hawai#i 253, 286, 327 P.3d 931, 964 (2014); State v. Yabusaki, 58

Haw. 404, 408, 570 P.2d 844, 846-47 (1977). "The amount of aid

given need not be much, 'so long as it was offered to the

principal to assist [them] in committing or attempting to commit

the crime.'" State v. Kauwe, No. 27751, 2009 WL 5083858, *1

(Haw. App. Dec. 28, 2009) (SDO) (citation omitted). We have

previously determined that there was substantial evidence to

support a defendant's conviction as an accomplice to Robbery

Second when the complaining witness testified that the defendant

and the principal both attacked him, and that the principal took

the complaining witness's watch. State v. Pulliam,

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 304007, *4 (Haw. App. Jan. 26, 2024)

(SDO).

Here, JD testified that GM was among the group that

surrounded him and that GM pushed him twice before Gia punched

him and took his property. While JD was being robbed, GM

assaulted JD's friend, CG. GM stood with Sam when Sam warned JD

that "they" would "mob" JD if he tried to get his things back.

There is no evidence that GM tried to disassociate himself from

this action. GM argues that when he pushed JD, he did so in an attempt to find out CG's whereabouts and to retaliate against JD

for lying to him, not to facilitate the robbery. However,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court's

finding that GM was more than merely present, but rather he

intended to aid Gia and Sam in committing the robbery.

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

For these reasons, we conclude that the Family Court

did not err in determining that GM was an accomplice to the

robbery.

Therefore, the August 17, 2022 Order Denying

Reconsideration, the July 27, 2022 Decree, and the November 18,

2022 Amended FOFs/COLs are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 28, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge William K. Li, for Minor-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.