State v. Arceo
This text of 928 P.2d 843 (State v. Arceo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
LEVINSON, Justice.
Following a jury trial, the defendant-appellant Anthony Arceo was found guilty as charged of committing one count of sexual assault in the third degree (Count One), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) [3]*3§ 707-732(l)(b) (1993),1 and one count of sexual assault in the first degree (Count Two), in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(l)(b) (1993),2 upon his six-year-old son. Areeo appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the circuit court pursuant to the jury’s verdicts.
All of Areeo’s points of error on appeal stem from the decision of the State (prosecution) to aggregate multiple acts of alleged “sexual contact,” see swpra note 1, into Count One of the indictment returned against him and multiple acts of alleged “sexual penetration,” see supra note 2, into Count Two of the indictment. Thus, Areeo urges that the circuit court erred in: (1) refusing to require the prosecution “to elect the specific acts upon which convictions ... were being sought” as to each count, in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict implicit in the due process clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution;3 (2) “failing to instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that [Areeo] committed the same specific act in reaching ... guilty verdiet[s]” as to each count, likewise in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict; and (3) “refusing to exclude evidence of other crimes and bad acts,” in violation of Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 403 (1993)4 and 404(b) (1993).5
[4]*4The prosecution counters that, “because sexual assault is a continuing offense,” (1) it was not obligated “to elect an incident of sexual abuse upon which to rely” in order to prove each of the counts charged in the indictment, and (2) the trial court was not obligated to give a “special unanimity instruction” to the jury. Accordingly, the prosecution concludes that Arceo’s “due process rights were not violated[J” The prosecution does not respond directly to Arceo’s point of error implicating HRE 403 and 404(b).
For the reasons discussed below, we vacate Arceo’s judgment of conviction and remand the matter to the circuit court for a new trial.
I, BACKGROUND
In December 1989, Arceo transported his six-year-old son (“the Minor”) from San Diego, California (their home at the time) to the County of Maui. Arceo claimed to have had an acquaintance who lived on the island, but, upon arrival, he discovered that the individual no longer resided at the address with which he had been provided. Arceo was directed to the Pu'unene Homeless Shelter [heremafter, “the shelter”], where he and the Minor obtained temporary housing.
At the shelter, they lived in a designated area—demarcated by suspended sheets, curtains, or blankets for privacy—that contained a single bed for the two to share. The shelter provided showers that were shared in common by the occupants. Arceo and the Minor customarily showered together because, according to Arceo, the Minor “was a very young boy,” did not “know how to take [a] shower yet by himself,” and Arceo “had to scrub medicated shampoo in [the Minor’s] hair to take off the bugs and fleas” and was “teaching him how to do ... this personal hygiene.” Thus, according to Arceo, he would “wash [the Minor’s] entire body down, cleaning him.”6
The Minor alleged that, during his time spent at the shelter, Arceo engaged in a variety of sexual acts with him. Specifically, the Minor claimed that Arceo: (1) twice inserted his finger into the Minor’s “butt” while the Minor was taking a shower; (2) inserted his penis into the Minor’s “butt” while the Minor was sleeping on the bed provided by the shelter; (3) twice performed [5]*5fellatio upon the Minor; (4) placed his penis on the Minor’s penis while the Minor was on the bed; and (5) placed his penis on the Minor’s back while the Minor was either on the bed or the floor of the “bedroom.”
In May 1990, an officer of the Maui Police Department, who was responding to a communication from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, took protective custody of the Minor at the Kahului Elementary School and deposited him into the care of the Child Protective Services (CPS) arm of the State of Hawai'i Department of Human Services. CPS then returned the Minor to his mother in San Diego. On June 15, 1990, the Minor was interviewed by a social worker in the employ of the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children’s Hospital.
On July 24, 1992, the Maui grand jury returned an indictment against Arceo, which charged him as follows:
COUNT ONE:
That during the period between August 16, 1989, to May 4, 1990, in the County of Maui, State of [Hawai'i], ANTHONY AR-CEO did knowingly subject [the Minor], a person less than fourteen (14) years old, to sexual contact or cause [the Minor] to have sexual contact with him, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Section 707-732(l)(b) of the [Hawai'i] Revised Statutes.
COUNT TWO:
That during the period between August 16, 1989, to May 4, 1990, in the County of Maui, State of [Hawai'i], ANTHONY AR-CEO did knowingly subject to sexual penetration another person, to wit, [the Minor], who was less than fourteen (14) years old, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of Section 707-730(l)(b) of the [Hawai'i] Revised Statutes.
On January 4, 1993, in anticipation of the commencement of trial the following week, Arceo filed a motion in limine, which sought an order from the circuit court “excluding evidence regarding [Arceo’s] prior bad acts under [HRE] 403 and 404(b)[.]” Attached to the motion in limine was an affidavit of defense counsel, which averred in relevant part:
5. After reviewing the Grand Jury transcript!,] Affiant has identified as least nine (9) alleged sexual assaults to which [the Minor] testified;
6. Affiant has reviewed the Indictment and only two counts of sexual assault are charged;
7. It would be unfair to [Arceo] if the [prosecution] did not specify the two incidents charged in the Indictment and to exclude reference to all others[.]
In addition, Arceo’s memorandum in support of the motion in limine advanced, inter alia, the following argument:
Count One of the Indictment charges [Arceo] with Sexual Assault in the Third Degree and Count Two charges him with Sexual Assault in the First Degree. Both of these offenses allegedly occurred between August 16, 1989 and May 4, 1990. The [Minor] testified at the ... Maui Grand Jury hearing wherein he made at least nine separate allegations of sexual abuse by his father. These allegations were: “He put his finger in my bottom”; “he put his fingers on my penis”; “he put his fingers on my butt ... in my butt”; “he put his mouth on my penis”.... Upon further encouragement from the prosecutor, [the Minor] also said [that Ar-ceo] put his finger inside [the Minor’s] butt “more than once”, “in the room and sometimes, inside the shower”....
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LEVINSON, Justice.
Following a jury trial, the defendant-appellant Anthony Arceo was found guilty as charged of committing one count of sexual assault in the third degree (Count One), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) [3]*3§ 707-732(l)(b) (1993),1 and one count of sexual assault in the first degree (Count Two), in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(l)(b) (1993),2 upon his six-year-old son. Areeo appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the circuit court pursuant to the jury’s verdicts.
All of Areeo’s points of error on appeal stem from the decision of the State (prosecution) to aggregate multiple acts of alleged “sexual contact,” see swpra note 1, into Count One of the indictment returned against him and multiple acts of alleged “sexual penetration,” see supra note 2, into Count Two of the indictment. Thus, Areeo urges that the circuit court erred in: (1) refusing to require the prosecution “to elect the specific acts upon which convictions ... were being sought” as to each count, in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict implicit in the due process clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution;3 (2) “failing to instruct the jury that it must agree unanimously that [Areeo] committed the same specific act in reaching ... guilty verdiet[s]” as to each count, likewise in violation of his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict; and (3) “refusing to exclude evidence of other crimes and bad acts,” in violation of Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 403 (1993)4 and 404(b) (1993).5
[4]*4The prosecution counters that, “because sexual assault is a continuing offense,” (1) it was not obligated “to elect an incident of sexual abuse upon which to rely” in order to prove each of the counts charged in the indictment, and (2) the trial court was not obligated to give a “special unanimity instruction” to the jury. Accordingly, the prosecution concludes that Arceo’s “due process rights were not violated[J” The prosecution does not respond directly to Arceo’s point of error implicating HRE 403 and 404(b).
For the reasons discussed below, we vacate Arceo’s judgment of conviction and remand the matter to the circuit court for a new trial.
I, BACKGROUND
In December 1989, Arceo transported his six-year-old son (“the Minor”) from San Diego, California (their home at the time) to the County of Maui. Arceo claimed to have had an acquaintance who lived on the island, but, upon arrival, he discovered that the individual no longer resided at the address with which he had been provided. Arceo was directed to the Pu'unene Homeless Shelter [heremafter, “the shelter”], where he and the Minor obtained temporary housing.
At the shelter, they lived in a designated area—demarcated by suspended sheets, curtains, or blankets for privacy—that contained a single bed for the two to share. The shelter provided showers that were shared in common by the occupants. Arceo and the Minor customarily showered together because, according to Arceo, the Minor “was a very young boy,” did not “know how to take [a] shower yet by himself,” and Arceo “had to scrub medicated shampoo in [the Minor’s] hair to take off the bugs and fleas” and was “teaching him how to do ... this personal hygiene.” Thus, according to Arceo, he would “wash [the Minor’s] entire body down, cleaning him.”6
The Minor alleged that, during his time spent at the shelter, Arceo engaged in a variety of sexual acts with him. Specifically, the Minor claimed that Arceo: (1) twice inserted his finger into the Minor’s “butt” while the Minor was taking a shower; (2) inserted his penis into the Minor’s “butt” while the Minor was sleeping on the bed provided by the shelter; (3) twice performed [5]*5fellatio upon the Minor; (4) placed his penis on the Minor’s penis while the Minor was on the bed; and (5) placed his penis on the Minor’s back while the Minor was either on the bed or the floor of the “bedroom.”
In May 1990, an officer of the Maui Police Department, who was responding to a communication from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, took protective custody of the Minor at the Kahului Elementary School and deposited him into the care of the Child Protective Services (CPS) arm of the State of Hawai'i Department of Human Services. CPS then returned the Minor to his mother in San Diego. On June 15, 1990, the Minor was interviewed by a social worker in the employ of the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children’s Hospital.
On July 24, 1992, the Maui grand jury returned an indictment against Arceo, which charged him as follows:
COUNT ONE:
That during the period between August 16, 1989, to May 4, 1990, in the County of Maui, State of [Hawai'i], ANTHONY AR-CEO did knowingly subject [the Minor], a person less than fourteen (14) years old, to sexual contact or cause [the Minor] to have sexual contact with him, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Section 707-732(l)(b) of the [Hawai'i] Revised Statutes.
COUNT TWO:
That during the period between August 16, 1989, to May 4, 1990, in the County of Maui, State of [Hawai'i], ANTHONY AR-CEO did knowingly subject to sexual penetration another person, to wit, [the Minor], who was less than fourteen (14) years old, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of Section 707-730(l)(b) of the [Hawai'i] Revised Statutes.
On January 4, 1993, in anticipation of the commencement of trial the following week, Arceo filed a motion in limine, which sought an order from the circuit court “excluding evidence regarding [Arceo’s] prior bad acts under [HRE] 403 and 404(b)[.]” Attached to the motion in limine was an affidavit of defense counsel, which averred in relevant part:
5. After reviewing the Grand Jury transcript!,] Affiant has identified as least nine (9) alleged sexual assaults to which [the Minor] testified;
6. Affiant has reviewed the Indictment and only two counts of sexual assault are charged;
7. It would be unfair to [Arceo] if the [prosecution] did not specify the two incidents charged in the Indictment and to exclude reference to all others[.]
In addition, Arceo’s memorandum in support of the motion in limine advanced, inter alia, the following argument:
Count One of the Indictment charges [Arceo] with Sexual Assault in the Third Degree and Count Two charges him with Sexual Assault in the First Degree. Both of these offenses allegedly occurred between August 16, 1989 and May 4, 1990. The [Minor] testified at the ... Maui Grand Jury hearing wherein he made at least nine separate allegations of sexual abuse by his father. These allegations were: “He put his finger in my bottom”; “he put his fingers on my penis”; “he put his fingers on my butt ... in my butt”; “he put his mouth on my penis”.... Upon further encouragement from the prosecutor, [the Minor] also said [that Ar-ceo] put his finger inside [the Minor’s] butt “more than once”, “in the room and sometimes, inside the shower”.... [The Minor] also said [that Arceo] put his penis “on my penis”, “more than once” ...; “sometimes on the bed and sometimes on the floor” ...; “sometimes in the day and sometimes night”.... [The Minor] also said [that Arceo] put his penis in [the Minor’s] butt “more than once”, sometimes “in the room”; sometimes “in the shower”.... Also, [the Minor] said [that Arceo] put his mouth on [the Minor’s] penis, “more than once”....
The [prosecution] has somehow sifted through all of these allegations and charged [Arceo] with having sexual contact with his son (Count One) and subjecting him to sexual penetration (Count Two). It is not clear which two particular incidents alleged above form the bases for the charges. All of the other alleged bad acts [6]*6should be excluded under [HRE] Rules 403 and 404(b)[.]
(Emphasis added.)
The prosecution filed a memorandum in opposition to Arceo’s motion in limine on January 7, 1993, which contained the following argument and representations:
[Arceo] does not seek greater specification of the alleged dates and times of the sexual offenses charged in order to prepare a defense or to avoid double jeopardy. To meet any concerns of double jeopardy, however, the [prosecution] will stipulate that the present indictment covers all alleged sexual assaults [plural] of the [M]i-nor by [Arceo] during the specified period while they were living on Maui.
However, [Arceo] seeks only to limit the evidence to two specified occurrences, presumably so that the jury will not learn the full extent of [Arceo’s] crime [singular]. The [prosecution] asserts that[,] in this case, [Arceo] has failed to show a defect in the charge or any prejudice that would justify granting his motion, and[,] further, that given the age of the minor complainant and the continuing nature of the offense [singular], there is good reason for denying [Arceo’s] motion.
[[Image here]]
Minors can rarely be expected to recall the specific date, time, and details of re-' peated sexual offense.... Accordingly, it has been held that where a defendant is accused of a sexual offense involving a minor, it is not necessary that a specific date for the offense be given because the time of the offense is not considered an indispensable ingredient of the offense. It is sufficient under such a charge that the time of the offense be given with as much particularity as possible under the circumstances based on the information available to the prosecution[,] provided that the time stated be within the statute of limitations. [Citations omitted.]
The instant motion appears to be designed to limit the [prosecution’s] proof of a continuing offense [singular]....
An order granting the motion is unwarranted and would unduly restrict the [prosecution’s] presentation of the evidence at trial. The Court’s options to that extremely unreasonable remedy would be to permit amendment of the indictment to eight or nine distinct charges, pursuant to [HRS § ] 806-^6,
... Clearly, the [prosecution] may charge (and has charged) [Arceo] with two continuous offenses based on repeated acts occurring over a period of time. [Arceo] essentially engaged in two continuous offenses, sexual contact with a minor and sexual penetration of a minor. “[T]he applicable test in determining whether there is a continuing crime ‘is whether the evidence discloses one general intent or discloses separate and distinct intents’.... [I]f there is but one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, even though there is a series of transactions, there is but one offense.” State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 368, 616 P.2d 193 (1980). The evidence herein, consisting of repeated sexual touching and/or penetration, disclose but one general intent. While the [prosecution] might have charged each act as a separate offense, the [prosecution] was as well entitled to charge the acts as a continuing offense. The alternative—charging [Arceo] with eight or nine separate offenses—would actually prejudice [Arceo] by subjecting him [to] enhanced sentencing in the event of conviction.
[7]*7(Some ellipsis points and brackets in original and some added.) (Emphases added.)
The circuit court conducted a hearing on Arceo’s motion in limine on January 11,1993, immediately before the commencement of trial. In the course of the hearing—at the conclusion of which the circuit court denied Arceo’s motion in limine—the following colloquy transpired among the deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA), defense counsel, and the circuit court:
THE COURT: ... As I understand it, Ms. [DPA], insofar as the motion is addressed to other acts during the period in the indictment[,] the [prosecution’s] offer of proof is that various kinds of conduct— contact[,] I should say, occurred. That the child will testify that they occurred more than once [and] that he is not able to be any more specific as regarding when?
[DPA]: That’s correct, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: Further that the [prosecution] is stipulating that an order may be entered that no other acts may be prosecuted during the period of the indictment.
[DPA]: That’s correct, [Y]our Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else for the record on that?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. Your Honor, for the record[,] I would like to object to any acts being brought into evidence which do not direct themselves to the two counts listed in the indictment.
It’s clear that sexual abuse is not an ongoing offense. It’s not a continuing offense. Even the law makes it clear that, for example, in sexual penetration under [HRS § ] 707-700[,] it says for purposes of this chapter!,] each act of sexual penetration shall constitute a separate offense.
The grand jury transcript not only shows that the [Minor] said that these incidents happened more than once, he described different types of penetration. One type of penetration was penile penetration into his anus. Another was digital penetration to his anus. Same as with touching. There were three or four different times [sic, presumably types] of touch. One[,] mouth on the penis. Penis on his back. Penis on penis.
All of these are separate allegations which are not just the [Minor] saying [Ar-ceo] touched me [on] four different occasions in the same way or he penetrated me on more than one occasion in the same manner.
So, I think, [Y]our Honor, we’re only asking that the prosecution be able to offer evidence which goes to prove its case against those two counts in the indictment. And since clearly sexual abuse!,] in this context, is not an ongoing offense, the [prosecution] should be precluded from bringing in reference[s] to all these other alleged incidents that happened!,] both [pursuant to] Rule ⅛03, [Rule] 40j(b), and the due process [violation] of having a banquet of offenses and we kind of have to guess which ones they’re going-to charge. And the jury will have the same problem!,] saying, well, if all the testimony comes in[J [Arceo] must have done something, so we just convict him. So we think that the [prosecution] should have to conform its evidence to the two counts listed in the indictment.
THE COURT: My understanding is[,] at the time of the offenses, your offer of proof is, [the Minor] was how old?
[DPA]: He was six and seven years old.
THE COURT: That he was unable to be more specific as to the time[,] and he can’t be specific as to the number of occasions [—] only that they are more than once.
[DPA]: That’s correct.
[[Image here]]
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’d like to make one more point that [the Minor] testified on two different occasions that there were 12 separate instances. He was very specific about that.
THE' COURT: I’m going to deny the motion....
(Emphases added.)
At trial, thé Minor, then nine years old, testified regarding the alleged sexual acts that occurred while living at the shelter. On direct examination, he and the DPA engaged in the following exchange:
[DPA]: Now, [Minor], how did you like living at the shelter?
[8]*8[MINOR]: Not much.
Q. Why not?
A. My Dad done things to me.
Q. Your Dad done things to you? Did he do things that you liked or didn’t like?
A. Didn’t like.
Q. What kind of things .:. did he do?
A. He stuck his finger in my butt and he put his penis on mine and he put his penis in my butt and my back.
Q. Okay, now.... Do you remember, can you remember certain times that things happened? Can you remember where things happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.... Can you tell us where at the shelter you would get touched in a way you didn’t like by your Dad?
A. The room and the showers.
Q. Is that the room that you were living in?
A. Yes.
[[Image here]]
Q. ... Now, you’ve now made a circle around the showers where you say your Dad touched you in a way you didn’t like. Now, what happened in the shower that you remember?
A. Put his finger in my butt.
Q. When did that happen?
A. When I was washing my hair.
Q. ... [W]ere you taking a bath with Dad?
A. One time and the other not.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay, [Minor], you say you were washing yourself. What do you remember happened?
A. I was bending down to wash my hair and he came and put his finger in my butt.
[[Image here]]
Q. And how many times did that happen, do you remember the number of times that happened?
A. No.
Q. Did it happen once or more than once?
A. Twice I think.
Q. Okay. Did it happen twice in the showers?
A. Yes, I think.
Q. Do you remember the other time— what is the other time you’re thinking of?
A. In the showers too.
Q. Okay. Now did you tell anybody about that?
A. No.
Q. How come?
A. I was scared.
Q. Scared of what?
A. If I did my Dad would hit me.
Q. Had he hit you when you were at the shelter?
A. Yes.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. Now, do you remember other times, other places where your Dad touched you at the shelter?
A. The bedroom.
[[Image here]]
Q. Where in the bedroom did that happen?
A. In the bed.
Q. ... [A]nd would that be in the day or the night?
A. Evening and the night.
Q. Did it happen once or more than once?
A. I think once.
Q. One time?
A. Maybe.
Q. Okay. What do you mean maybe?
A. Maybe it’s more or maybe it’s once.
Q. Were you counting the times that things happened?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Do you remember what happened though?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us what you remember happening in the bedroom?
A. Put his penis in [sic] my penis.
Q. He put his penis on your penis and—
[9]*9A. And my back.
Q. Where were you at the time? What part of the room?
A. In the bed.
[[Image here]]
Q. Okay. When he put his penis on your penis what did he do?
A. Made it go up and down.
Q. Made what go up and down?
A. His body.
[[Image here]]
Q. Now, you said that he put his penis in your butt?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did that happen, [Minor]?
A. When I was sleeping on the bed.
Q. Okay. And what did you feel?
A. His penis.
Q. Okay. And how do you know it was his penis?
A. Felt like it.
Q. How did it feel?
A. Soft.
Q. When you say soft, what do you mean?
A. Squishy.
Q. What part of you did it touch?
A. My butt.
Q. Okay. Was it on the outside of your butt or the inside of your butt?
A. Halfway.
Q. Halfway where?
A. In my butt.
Q. Okay. You know when you have a butt, does your butt have a hole also?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it go in the hole?
A. Halfway.
Q. You felt it go in?
A. Yes.
[[Image here]]
Q. Do you remember you said that Daddy’s penis touched you on the back?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember where that happened?
A. On the floor I think.
Q. On the floor?
A. Or on the bed.
Q. Can you remember really, really good?
A. I think it was on the bed.
Q. What do you remember when your Daddy’s penis touched your back?
A. When I woke up it was on my back.
Q. When you woke up in the morning?
A. Yes.
[[Image here]]
Q. Did he ever touch you with his mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. He did? Where did he touch you with his mouth?
A. On my penis.
Q. Did he do that once or more than once?
A. Twice, I think.
Q. Okay, twice. Were your clothes on or off?
A. Sometimes off.
Q. Now, what do you remember about how Daddy touched you with his mouth on your penis?
A. He made it go up and down.
Q. What did he make go up and down?
A. His mouth.
Q. [N]ow did you ever see Daddy’s penis?
A. Yes.
Q. During any of these times when he was touching you, doing things, did you see his penis?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it look?
A. Slimy, like egg like [sic] on it.
Q. Egg white on it?
A. Yeah, and eggs like scrambled.
[[Image here]]
Q. Is that something you would see come on his penis or come out of it?
A. Come out of it.
[[Image here]]
Q. Now, [Minor], how does it make you feel to talk about this?
[10]*10A. Scared.
Q. Do you like telling about this in court?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Before coming to court did you spend a lot of time trying to remember everything or trying to forget it?
A. Sometimes, um, we went to counseling to forget about it.
Q. You went to counseling to forget about it?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did that counseling help you?
A. Yes.
Q. When you were at the shelter did you tell people Daddy was doing these things?
A. No.
Q. What did you think would happen if you told people?
A. Hit me.
Q. When you were at the shelter did you know where your Mom was?
A. No.
[[Image here]]
Q. ... [A]ll the time you were here on Maui living at the shelter, did you ever see or hear from Mom?
A. No.
[[Image here]]
Q. When you got on the airplane where did you think you were going?
A. I think to see my Mom.
Q. How did you feel about that?
A. Happy.
Q. Did you feel sad or' upset to be leaving your Dad?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because he done that things to me and I don’t want it to happen again.
On cross-examination, the Minor acknowledged that he recalled telling Detective Rojas of the Maui Police Department that his father had touched him approximately twelve times, but that, at trial, he could only guess as to the number of separate instances because he could not presently remember. He further conceded that he had a difficult time remembering what had happened three years ago.
Testifying in his own defense, Arceo denied the Minor’s allegations of sexual abuse. He insisted that he had (1) touched the Minor in the shower only in the course of teaching him how to clean himself, (2) never intentionally penetrated the Minor’s anus in the shower with his finger, (3) never penetrated the Minor’s anus with his penis in the shower, the bedroom, or anywhere else, and (4) never intentionally touched the Minor at night when they shared the bed in the shelter.
Following the close of the evidence and the final arguments of counsel, the circuit court instructed the jury. Instruction No. 26, given by agreement of the parties, directed in relevant part that “[a] verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and in order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous.” Instruction No. 28, also given by agreement of the parties, advised in relevant part that, “[a]s to each count, ... your verdict must be unanimous.” Arceo did not request, nor did the circuit court give, an instruction advising the jury that, in order to convict him of either charged offense, all twelve of its members were required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt that Arceo committed the same underlying act constituting the “conduct” element of the charged offense.
At the conclusion of its deliberations, the jury found Arceo guilty of both charged offenses. Arceo’s timely appeal followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Statutory Interpretation
“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo.” State v. Camara, 81 Hawai'i 324, 329, 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citation omitted). See also State v. Aluli, 78 Hawai'i 317, 320, 893 P.2d 168, 171 (1995) (citation omitted).
[11]*11 B.Evidentiary Rulings
[Djifferent standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard.
Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 319, 844 P.2d 670, 676, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 847 P.2d 263 (1993). Where the evidentiary ruling at issue concerns admissibility based upon relevance, under ... [HRE] Rules 401 and 402, the proper standard of appellate review is the right/wrong standard. See State v. Toro, 77 Hawai'i 340, 347, 884 P.2d 403, 410 (Haw.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 77 Hawai'i 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994).
State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai'i 307, 314, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129 (1996) (some brackets in original and some added). “Evidentiary decisions based on HRE Rule 403, which require a ‘judgment call’ on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai'i 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995) (citing Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai'i 14, 19, 897 P.2d 941, 946 (1995)). “HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review.” State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538, 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.’” State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai'i 358, 373, 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994)).
C.Constitutional Questions
Whether a defendant is denied due process of law by virtue of the trial court’s refusal to require the prosecution to elect the particular act on which it is relying in seeking a criminal conviction of a charged offense presents a question of constitutional law. We answer questions of constitutional law “by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case.” State v. Trainor, 83 Hawai'i 250, 255, 925 P.2d 818, 823 (1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Lee, 83 Hawai'i 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097 (1996) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the “right/ wrong” standard. See State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 15, 904 P.2d 893, 900 (1995) (citing State v. Higa, 79 Hawai'i 1, 3, 897 P.2d 928, 930 (1995), and State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai'i 127, 137, 890 P.2d 1167, 1177 (1995)); State v. Baranco, 77 Hawai'i 351, 355, 884 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (issue whether defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy would be violated unless indictment dismissed is question of law, reviewed under right/wrong standard); In re Doe, Born on January 5, 1976, 76 Hawai'i 85, 93, 869 P.2d 1304, 1312 (1994) (whether speech is protected by first amendment to United States Constitution as applied to states through fourteenth amendment and by article I, section 4 of Hawaii Constitution are questions of law freely reviewable on appeal).
D.Omission Of Jury Instructions
“ ‘When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on’ appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.’ ” State v. Kinnane, 79 Hawai'i 46, 49, 897 P.2d 973, 976 (1995) (quoting State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 514-15, 849 P.2d 58, 74 (1993) (citations omitted)).... See also State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai'i 17, 38, 881 P.2d 504, 525 (1994).
“ ‘[EJrroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial.’ ” State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 527, 778 P.2d 704, 716 (1989) ... (quoting Turner v. Willis, 59 Haw. 319, 326, 582 P.2d 710, 715 (1978)).
[12]*12[E]rror is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract. It must be examined in the light of the entire proceedings and given the effect which the whole record shows it to be entitled. In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to conviction.
State v. Heard, 64 Haw. 193, 194, 638 P.2d 307, 308 (1981) (citations omitted). If there is such a reasonable possibility in a criminal case, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside. See Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 402-03 ... (1991)[.]
State v. Holbron, 80 Hawai'i 27, 32, 904 P.2d 912, 917, reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 187, 907 P.2d 773 (1995) (some citations omitted) (brackets in original) (emphasis deleted); see also State v. Loa, 83 Hawai'i 335, 350, 926 P.2d 1258, 1273 (1996); State v. Robinson, 82 Hawai'i 304, 310-11, 922 P.2d 358, 364-65 (1996).8
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sexual Assault In The First Degree, In Violation Of HRS § 707-780(l)(b), And Sexual Assault In The Third Degree, In Violation Of HRS § 707-732(1)(b), Are Not “Continuing Offenses. ”
The mutually exclusive positions advanced by the parties in this appeal generate a threshold question, namely, whether (as the prosecution maintains) Arceo’s alleged “repeated acts occurring over a period of time” could be aggregated into a two-count indictment—organized generically into clusters of acts each comprising a distinct instance of the same statutory offense—on the basis that Arceo “essentially engaged in two continuous offenses, sexual contact with a minor and sexual penetration of a minor.” See supra at 5, 928 P.2d at 848. In order to answer the question, we must analyze the elements of the offenses with which Arceo was charged and of which he was convicted, see supra notes 1 and 2, determine—within the context of the statutory scheme created by the Hawaii Penal Code (HPC)—whether it is possible for them to be “continuing,” and, finally, consider the potential ramifications of treating them as such.
1. Elements of the offenses
a. General principles
Pursuant to HRS § 702-205 (1993), the “elements of an offense” are defined as such conduct,9 attendant circumstances, and results of conduct as are (1) specified by the statutory definition of the offense and (2) negative a defense on the merits (i.e., a defense “other than one based on the statute of limitations, lack of venue, or lack of jurisdiction”). See commentary on HRS § 702-205.
[13]*13In general, the precise time and date of the commission of an offense is not regarded as a material element. Accordingly, this court “has long recognized that, in cases involving sexual abuse of minors, it is sufficient, in the indictment, to allege that the offense occurred over a particular time span[.]” State v. Sherman, 70 Haw. 334, 339, 770 P.2d 789, 792 (1989) (citing Territory v. Low, 35 Haw. 571 (1940), and Territory v. Izumi, 34 Haw. 209 (1937)). In this regard, Low, 35 Haw. at 578, expressly reaffirmed the general rule, which was first enunciated in Territory v. Crawford, 18 Haw. 246, 247 (1907):
Ordinarily the time of the commission of an offense must be specifically alleged, but unless it is of the essence of the offense it need not be proved as alleged; it is sufficient to allege any time within the statute of limitations and before the finding of the indictment and to prove any* other time within that period. If, however, the time is of the essence of the offense it must be proved in so far as it is of the essence. For instance, if the offense is driving without lights during the hours of darkness it must be both alleged and proved to have been committed during such hours, although it is sufficient to prove that it was during any such hour even though different from the particular hour, if any, alleged. Similarly, if the offense is a violation of a Sunday law, its time must be alleged as on Sunday, but it is sufficient to prove that it was on some other Sunday than the one alleged.
See also HRS § 806-27 (1993) (“No indictment shall be held invalid or insufficient for want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved[.]”); HRS § 806-34 (1993) (“In an indictment!,] the offense ... may be stated with so much detail of time, place, and circumstances and such particulars ... as are necessary to identify the transaction, to bring it within the statutory definition of the offense charged, to show that the court has jurisdiction, and to give the accused reasonable notice of the facts.” (Emphasis added)); Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(d) (“The charge shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.... The charge need not contain ... any ... matter not necessary to such statement....”).
Our view in this regard appears to represent the preponderant position among the various jurisdictions. For example, in People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294, 270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643 (1990), the California Supreme Court articulated the following paradigm, with which we agree:
Does the victim’s failure to specify precise date, time, place or circumstance render generic testimony insufficient? Clearly not. As many of the cases make clear, the particular details surrounding a child molestation charge are not elements of the offense and are unnecessary to sustain a conviction.
The victim, of course, must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g. lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment (e.g., “twice a month” or “every time we went camping”). Finally, the victim must be able to describe the general time period in which these acts occurred (e.g., “the summer before my fourth grade,” or “during each Sunday morning after he came to live with us”) to assure the acts were committed within the applicable limitation period. Additional details regarding the time, place or circumstance of the various assaults may assist in assessing the credibility or substantiality of the victim’s testimony, but are not essential to sustain a conviction.
Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr. at 623-24, 792 P.2d at 655-56 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). See also Covington v. State, 703 P.2d 436, 440 (Alaska.Ct.App.1985) (“While we agree with the [prosecution’s] authorities that an indictment is sufficient which charges a specific incident, the precise date of which the witness is uncertain, the witness must nevertheless have a specific incident in [14]*14mind.”); Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144, 152 (Colo.1990) (“The prosecution need not specify the exact date the offense took place, but it must specify a particular act.” (Citing Laycock v. People, 66 Colo. 441, 182 P. 880, 881 (1919).)); State v. Roberts, 101 Idaho 199, 610 P.2d 558, 559 (1980) (“Since time is not a material ingredient in the offense ..., the information need only be specific enough to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and to protect him from being subsequently prosecuted for the same offense. Any other rule would too often preclude prosecutions in this type of case where the victims are minors and where the crimes are not discovered until some time after their commission.” (Citations omitted.)); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473, 682 P.2d 1339, 1344-45 (1984) (holding that, inasmuch as “time is not a material ingredient in statutory rape,” an amended information charging defendant with sexual intercourse without consent with his minor stepdaughter, and alleging in each count that offense charged occurred during certain week, or period of several weeks, stated time and place of charged offenses as definitely as could be done under circumstances of case and thus was sufficient in that regard).
Notwithstanding that, as a general rule, the precise time and date of the commission of any given offense is not a material element of the offense within the framework of the HPC,
HRS § 701-114(l)(a) and (b) (1993) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the offense, as well as the state of mind required to establish each element of the offense. Moreover, HRS § 702-204 (1993) provides in relevant part that “a person is not guilty of an offense unless the person acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law specifies with respect to each element of the offense.” ... HRS § 702-207 (1993) provides that “[when] the definition of an offense specifies the state of mind sufficient for the commission of that offense, without distinguishing among the elements thereof, the specified state of mind shall apply to all elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.” In addition, pursuant to HRS § 702-205 ..., the requisite state of mind applies to such conduct, attendant circumstances, and results of conduct as are specified by the definition of the offense.
State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai'i 382, 412, 910 P.2d 695, 725 (1996) (quoting Holbron, 80 Hawai'i at 39, 904 P.2d at 924) (some ellipsis points in original and some added) (brackets in original).
b. Sexual assault in the first degree (Count Two)
A person (who is not a health care practitioner, licensed under HRS chs. 453, 455, or 460, performing an act within his or her respective practice, see supra note 2) commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707-730(l)(b), if the person knowingly subjects to sexual penetration another person who is less that fourteen years old.
Accordingly, there were three material elements of the offense of sexual assault in the first degree as charged in Count Two of the indictment against Arceo, each of which the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish guilt. These three material elements were: (1) that Arceo subjected the Minor to sexual penetration (ie., the prohibited conduct, to wit, anal intercourse, fellatio, or the intrusion of Arceo’s finger into the Minor’s anal opening, see supra note 2); (2) that Arceo was aware that he was doing so (ie., the requisite knowing state of mind with respect to the actor’s conduct);10 and (3) that the Minor was less than fourteen years old at the time of the sexual penetration (ie., the attendant circumstance of the Minor’s age, see supra note 2).11
[15]*15c. Sexual assault in the third degree (Count One)
A person commit the offense of sexual assault in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 707-732(l)(b), if the person knowingly subjects to sexual contact another person who is less than fourteen years old or causes such a person to have sexual contact with the person.
Accordingly, there were four material elements of the offense of sexual assault in the third degree as charged in Count One of the indictment against Arceo, each of which the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish guilt. These four material elements were: (1) that Arceo subjected the Minor to sexual contact (ie., the prohibited conduct, to wit, the touching of the Minor’s back with Arceo’s penis or the touching of the Minor’s penis with Ar-ceo’s penis, see supra note 1); (2) that Arceo was aware that he was doing so (ie., the requisite knowing state of mind with respect to the actor’s conduct, see supra note 10); (3) that Arceo was aware that the Minor was not married to him (ie., the requisite knowing state of mind with respect to the attendant circumstance implicit in “sexual contact,” see supra notes 1 and 11); and '(4) that the Minor was less than fourteen years old at the time of the sexual contact (ie., the attendant circumstance of the Minor’s age, see supra note l).12
2. Multiple sexual assaults, “continuing offenses, ” and the conceptual framework. established by the HPC.
a. The competing constructs
The case law of certain jurisdictions contains language suggesting that, under certain circumstances, a series of distinct sexual assaults committed against a minor may constitute a single “continuing” offense. See, e.g., People v. Cooks, 446 Mich. 503, 521 N.W.2d 275, 286 (1994); Huddleston v. State, 695 P.2d 8, 10-11 (Okla.Crim.App.1985); Clark, 682 P.2d at 1344.
In Cooks, the defendant was convicted of a single count of “second degree criminal sexual conduct,” notwithstanding that “testimony elicited from the [ten-year-old] complainant at trial referred to three incidents of sexual penetration.” 521 N.W.2d at 276. The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the conviction “because the trial court refused to instruct the jurors that unanimous agreement about a specific act of penetration [was] required for conviction.” Id. See section III. C.2. of this opinion, infra. “Because materially identical evidence was offered with respect to each of the alleged acts of penetration and there [was] no reason to believe the jury was confused or disagreed about the basis of [the] defendant’s guilt,” a majority of the Michigan' Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court had not erred. 521 N.W.2d at 276.
In the course of its analysis, the Cooks majority noted that “the evidence offered in this case to support each of the alleged acts of penetration was materially identical, i.e., the complainant’s equivocal testimony of an anal penetration, occurring in the same house over an unspecified three-day period ..., while only she and [the] defendant were in the room.” Id. at 286 (footnote omitted). On this basis, the Cooks majority expressed the view that “the multiple acts alleged by the prosecutor were tantamount to a continuous course of conduct.” Id. By contrast, Justice Levin argued in dissent that
[t]he continuous conduct exception only applies to those offense[s] where the statute defining the crime may be interpreted as applying to an offense that may be continuous in nature, such as failure to provide, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, driving under the influence, concealing stolen property, and criminal acts of possession.
[16]*16 Multiple sex acts do not merge into a single continuing offense because the defendant can be convicted and punished for each separate act.
Id. at 288 n. 4 (emphasis added). In support of his position, Justice Levin observed that, in People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 420-21, 509 N.Y.S.2d 790, 502 N.E.2d 577 (1986), “[t]he New York Court of Appeals rejected the continuing conduct exception [as applied] to sexual abuse, because those crimes as defined in the Penal Law of New York ‘punish the performance of a single act.’ ” Id.
In Huddleston, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held “that when a child of tender years is under the exclusive domination of one parent for a definite and certain period of time and submits to sexual acts at that parent’s demand, the separate acts of abuse become one transaetion[.]” 695 P.2d at 10-11. The Huddleston court’s view that the defendant’s separate acts of sexual abuse “became one transaction” is puzzling, however, inasmuch as the defendant was charged with, and convicted of, three distinct counts of sexual assault—one count of first degree rape and two counts of oral sodomy—committed against his nine-year-old daughter. Id. at 9.
In Clark, a majority of the Montana Supreme Court had the following to say: ■
Both the original and the amended information set forth facts alleging a series of incidents of unlawful sexual contacts perpetrated by the step-father upon the child. Incestuous conduct is charged as a series of offenses of sexual intercourse without consent with the same minor victim.
Incest generally involves a continuing course of sexual conduct between two family members within the family home. Incestuous conduct usually consists of a series of unlawful sexual contacts between an adult family member and a child. In these respects, sexual offenses committed against a minor by a parent or step-parent are distinguishable from rape cases involving adult victims and a single criminal event in unfamiliar surroundings.
682 P.2d at 1344.
In our view, the foregoing language is both confusing and misleading. The defendant in Clark was charged with, and convicted of, eight counts of “sexual intercourse without consent” under Montana law. Insofar as the defendant was convicted of “a series of offenses” (plural), we fail to understand how, for charging purposes, he could be deemed to have engaged in a single “continuing course of sexual conduct.” In any event, the Clark majority’s discussion merely sought to explain why “[t]he defendant here had notice of the nature of the charges [plural] against him and [an] adequate opportunity to defend.” Id. The propriety of amalgamating multiple offenses within a single count was obviously not at issue in the defendant’s appeal. Had such an amalgamation been an option available to the prosecution, the Clark majority would, at the very least, have been confronted with the equal protection and due process issues addressed infra in section III. A.3. of this opinion.
Other jurisdictions have held that repeated acts of sexual assault on a child cannot, by their very nature, be treated as a single “continuing” offense. A salient example is State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244, 555 A.2d 390 (1989), in which the defendant was charged, inter alia, with two counts of “risk of injury to a minor,” in violation of a Connecticut criminal statute.14 The first count alleged that between June 1979 and January 18, 1983, and between January 20, 1983 and January 11, 1984, the defendant committed acts likely to impair the health and morals of the victim (who was born on January 19, 1978). 555 A.2d at 392, 398. The second count alleged that, on January 19, 1983, the defendant also committed acts against the victim in violation of the statute. Id. at 398. The Snook court’s description of the defen[17]*17dant’s predicate conduct consisted of the following:
In her videotaped testimony, the victim related two incidents in which the defendant engaged in various sexual activities with her while they had left the house to go for a walk and to fly a kite. The victim testified that on another occasion, the day of her birthday, while her mother was out shopping for a birthday present, the defendant brought her into a closet in their house, removed his pants and her pants, and rubbed her vagina. He then made her sit on his penis. This incident was interrupted when the defendant heard the mother’s car door slam. The victim’s mother testified that the last incident occurred on the victim’s fifth birthday.
Id. at 39B. A jury convicted the defendant of both charged offenses, after which he moved the trial court for a judgment of acquittal as to the second count, “claiming that a conviction on both counts ... violated his state and federal constitutional protections against double jeopardy.” Id. at 398. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.
Affirming the defendant’s convictions, the Snook court ruled, inter alia, as follows:
Double jeopardy prohibits not only multiple trials for the same offense, but also multiple punishments for the same offense. Before the double jeopardy prohibition is triggered, however, it must appear that the crimes arose out of the same act or transaction. If a violation of law is not continuous in its nature, separate indictments may be maintained for each violation. Thus, a distinct repetition of a prohibited act constitutes a second offense and subjects the offender to an additional penalty.
In the present case, the separate counts alleging risk of injury to a minor arose out of separate acts. The ... information makes clear that the defendant was charged with violating [the statute] as a result of at least two separate transactions: any acts occurring between June, 1979, through January 11, 1984, excepting January 19, 1983; and acts occurring on January 19, 1983. We disagree with the defendant that [the first count] alleged “a violation of law continuous in nature,” such that a separate count alleging a violation of [the statute] on a specific date was impermissible. The failure of the [prosecution] to obtain more specific information as to the date or dates of the acts alleged in [the first count] did not render the defendant’s criminal conduct “a violation of law continuous in nature.” [The statute] as charged does not proscribe a continuing course of criminal conduct but proscribes acts directly perpetrated on the person of the minor and injurious to his moral or physical well-being.... As we stated in an analogous context, “each separate act of forcible sexual intercourse constitutes a separate crime. A different view would allow a person who has committed one sexual assault upon a victim to commit with impunity many other such acts during the same encounter.” If we adopted the defendant’s reasoning, the commission of one act likely to impair the health and morals of a minor would insulate the perpetrator from further criminal liability for any additional acts of the same character perpetrated on the same minor in subsequent encounters. Such a result defies rationality.
A distinct repetition of an act prohibited by [the statute] constitutes a second offense.
Id. at 398-99 (citations and some quotation marks omitted) (some ellipsis points omitted and some added) (emphases added).
See also Covington, 703 P.2d at 440 (holding that “[s]exual abuse of a minor is not a ‘continuing offense’”); State v. Petrich, 101 Wash.2d 566, 683 P.2d 173, 177 (1984) (“The [prosecution’s] attempt to ... characteriz[e] the charge as a continuing offense is not persuasive. Under appropriate facts, a continuing course of conduct may form the basis of one charge in an information. But ‘one continuing offense’ must be distinguished from ‘several distinct acts,’ each of which could be the basis for a criminal charge’.” (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.)).
b. Multiple sexual assaults, “continuing offenses, ” and the Hawai'i Penal Code
As we have indicated, the prosecution in the present case invites us to apply the “con[18]*18tinuing offense” construct to HRS §§ 707-730(l)(b) and 707-732(l)(b) so as to treat them as “two continuous offenses, sexual contact with a minor and sexual penetration of a minor.” We cannot.
HRS § 701-102(1) (1993) provides that “[n]o behavior constitutes an offense unless it is a crime or violation under [the HPC] or another statute of this State.” Accordingly, “[t]here are no common-law offenses in [Hawaii] .... That all offenses should be adequately proscribed by statute seems at this point of legal development a dictate of fundamental fairness.” Commentary on HRS § 701-102. See also HRS § 1-1 (1993) (“The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of [Hawaii] in all cases, ... provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State.”); State v. Ching, 62 Haw. 656, 658, 619 P.2d 93, 94 (1980) (“In this jurisdiction, there are no common law offenses[.]” (Citation omitted.)). Correlatively, it is a purpose of the HPC “to define and codify certain specific offenses which constitute harms to basic social interests which the [HPC] seeks to protect.” HRS § 701-103 (1993).
The provisions of [the HPC] cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for [t]herein; however, in order to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair import of the words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purpose of the provision.
HRS § 701-104 (1993). See Holbron, 80 Hawai'i at 45, 904 P.2d at 930.
It is within the foregoing statutory context—as applied to the statutory elements and general principles described in section III.A.1. of this opinion, supra—that we must consider whether, as the prosecution urges in the present appeal, sexual assault in the first degree as defined by HRS § 707—730(l)(b), see supra note 2, and sexual assault in the third degree as defined by HRS § 707-732(l)(b), see supra note 1, respectively describe “continuous offenses” of “sexual penetration of a minor” and “sexual contact with a minor.”
This court has defined a “continuing offense” as
a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may oceupy[, or] an offense which continues day by day[, or] a breach of the criminal law, not terminated by a single act or fact, but subsisting for a definite period and intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences.
State v. Temple, 65 Haw. 261, 267 n. 6, 650 P.2d 1358, 1362 n. 6 (1982) (citation omitted). Put differently,
[t]he test to determine whether [a] defendant intended to commit more than one offense in the course of a criminal episode is whether the evidence discloses one general intent or discloses separate and distinct intents. If there is but one intention, one general impulse, and one plan, there is but one offense.
Ganal, 81 Hawai‘i at 379, 917 P.2d at 391 (quoting State v. Castro, 69 Haw. 633, 653, 756 P.2d 1033, 1047 (1988)) (quotation signals omitted).
The parameters of “continuing” offenses are circumscribed by HRS §§ 701-108(4) (1995), 701-109(l)(e) (1993), and 701-118(4) (1993), see supra at note 9. Examples of continuing offenses, within the meaning of the HPC, include: (1) first degree murder, in violation of HRS § 707-701(l)(a) (1993), whereby a person “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of ... [m]ore than one person in the same or separate incident” (a substantive offense apparently unique to Hawai'i); Ganal, 81 Hawai'i at 378-79 & n. 25, 384, 917 P.2d at 390-91 & n. 25, 396; (2) first degree robbery, in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (1993); Hoey, 77 Hawai'i at 38 & n. 19, 881 P.2d at 525 & n. 19; (3) under certain circumstances, kidnapping, in violation of HRS § 707-720(1)(e) (1993); id. at 38 & n. 20, 881 P.2d at 525 & n. 20; (4) theft of a firearm, in violation of HRS §§ 708-830(7) (1993) and 708-830.5(1)(b) (1993); Temple, 65 [19]*19Haw. at 266-68, 650 P.2d at 1361-62; and (5) theft of state property by deception, in violation of HRS § 708-830(2) (1993); State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 367-69, 616 P.2d 193, 196-97 (1980). Each of these offenses is statutorily defined as an uninterrupted and continuing course of conduct, or manifests a plain legislative purpose to be treated as such, or both. See HRS §§ 701-108(4), 701-109(l)(e), and 701-118(4), supra at note 9.
The same cannot be said, however,. with respect to the statutory scheme relating to “sexual offenses,” HRS §§ 707-730 through 707-741 (1993), which the legislature substantially reorganized in 1986. See 1986 Haw.Sess.L.Act 314 [hereinafter, “Act 314”], §§ 48 and 57 at 615, 617-18. When interpreting this statutory scheme, we abide by several established rules of statutory construction. First, “our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is obtained primarily from the language contained' in the statute[s]” themselves. Mathewson v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 82 Hawai'i 57, 71, 919 P.2d 969, 983 (1996) (citation and quotation signals omitted); State v. Kwak, 80 Hawai'i 291, 295, 909 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), reconsideration granted, 80 Hawai'i 297, 909 P.2d 1112 (1995); Norton v. Administrative Director of Court, State of Hawai‘i, 80 Hawai'i 197, 201, 908 P.2d 545, 549 (1995) (citation omitted); Cieri v. Leticia Query Realty, Inc., 80 Hawai'i 54, 67, 905 P.2d 29, 42 (1995) (citation omitted); Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i at 18, 904 P.2d at 903 (citation omitted); Housing Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Castle, 79 Hawai'i 64, 77, 898 P.2d 576, 589 (1995) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Aluli, 78 Hawai'i at 320, 893 P.2d at 171 (citation omitted); State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 351, 845 P.2d 547, 551, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 849 P.2d 81 (1993) (citation omitted). Second, “[l]aws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful in another.” HRS § 1-16 (1993); Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai'i 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994) (citation omitted). And, third, “[t]he legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and legislation will be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction[,] and illogicality.” State v. Malufau, 80 Hawai'i 126, 137, 906 P.2d 612, 623 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The legislature has explained the purposes underlying its reorganization of the statutory scheme governing sexual offenses, effected by Act 314, as follows:
The crimes of rape and sodomy have been eliminated[,] as well as the “voluntary social companion” distinction between first and second degree rape and sodomy offenses. All of the sexual offenses have been incorporated into five degrees of sexual assault.[15] The creation of the intermediate level of bodily injury allows for a graduated, five-level sexual assault scheme running from class A to a petty misdemeanor[,] which provides punishment [that] reflects the seriousness of the offense committed....
Hse.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 51-86, in 1986 House Journal, at 938; Sen.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 51-86, in 1986 Senate Journal, at 748. In order to underscore its intent that each distinct sexual offense be subject to separate punishment, the legislature added a definition of “sexual penetration” to HRS § 707-700, see supra note 2, which provides, inter alia, that “[f]or purposes of this chapter, each act of sexual penetration shall constitute a separate offense.” Act 314, § 48 at 615. The new definition clarified that, “even though rape and sodomy [were] renamed sexual assault offenses, the prosecutors [could] still multiple charge a defendant for each act of penetration.” Hse. Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 51-86, in 1986 House Journal, at 938; Sen.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 51-86, in 1986 Senate Journal, at 748.16
[20]*20Given the clear language of, and interrelationship among, the provisions of the statutory scheme governing sexual offenses, there is little wonder that the appellate courts of this state have consistently recognized that each act constituting a sexual assault is punishable as a separate and distinct offense. State v. Horswill, 75 Haw. 152, 857 P.2d 579 (1993) is a recent example. Horswill was convicted of multiple offenses, including two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree. The evidence at trial established that, within a brief and uninterrupted period of time,
Horswill ... placed his mouth on Complainant’s breast [and] made her (1) place his penis in her mouth; (2) place her hands on his penis; and (3) place his penis in her vagina. Shortly thereafter, Horswill fell asleep. When Complainant attempted to leave, Horswill awoke, choked her, and placed her back in bed. They had intercourse a second time, after which Horswill again fell asleep.
75 Haw. at 155, 857 P.2d at 581. Affirming. Horswill’s convictions on appeal, this court ruled, inter alia, that “it is possible for a defendant in the context of one criminal transaction to commit several acts independently violative of one or more statutes, and he or she may be punished for all of them if charges are properly consolidated by the prosecution in one trial.” Id. at 162, 857 P.2d at 584 (citations omitted).
In State v. Rulona, 71 Haw. 127, 785 P.2d 615 (1990), the defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707—730(l)(b), and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 707-732(l)(b), all of the offenses being committed against the same minor. He appealed one of his first degree sexual assault convictions on the ground that there was “no allegation, nor any proof of penetration of the alleged victim’s vagina by his tongue.” 71 Haw. at 128, 785 P.2d at 616. In support of his point of error, the defendant pointed “to the fact that first degree sexual assault, against a person under 14 years of age, requires sexual penetration, while third degree sexual assault, of such a person, merely requires sexual contact.” Id. This court rejected the defendant’s argument:1
Sexual penetration is defined, among other things, in HRS § 707-700 as including eun-nilingus. Cunnilingus is not defined in the penal code. The word is derived from the Latin word “cunnus” meaning the vulva and the Latin verb “linctus[,]” the act of licking, and thus is defined as the stimulation of the vulva, or clitoris, with the lips or tongue. See Webster’s New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1976).
It may seem anomalous that touching the vulva with the penis, without physical penetration, would apparently constitute sexual contact and, hence, in the case of a child under 14, would constitute third degree sexual assault, while touching the same spot with the tongue, without physical penetration, would nevertheless constitute sexual penetration for the purposes of the [HPC], and thus be sexual assault in the first degree. Nevertheless, it is the legislature’s prerogative to act anomalously, if it wishes. The language of the statute is clear and [the defendant’s] point ... is not well taken.
Id. at 128-29, 785 P.2d at 616.
Inasmuch as the plain language of HRS § 707-700 interposes “any penetration, however slight” as a precondition to “sexual penetration” in any of its forms, see supra note 2, the Rulona court’s analytical judgment that “sexual penetration” of the complainant had been proved as to the count at issue before it appears questionable to us. What is not questionable, however, is the fact that the defendant was properly charged with [21]*21four separate and distinctly punishable offenses against the minor victim and that his allegedly unlawful conduct did not constitute a single continuing offense.
In State v. Hoopii, 68 Haw. 246, 710 P.2d 1193 (1985), a pre-Act 314 case, the defendant engaged in the following conduct, which the prosecution in the present matter would presumably characterize, inter alia, as the “continuous offense” of “sexual penetration of a minor”:
[The defendant] abducted the [six-year-old] girl as she walked home from school. He first drove her to a beach area off Lagoon Drive, then to another unknown location, and then back to the original beach area. At some point, he tied the girl’s wrists and ankles with rope and covered her mouth and eyes with tape. He later untied her, removed her clothing and raped and sodomized her.
68 Haw. at 247, 710 P.2d at 1194 (emphases added). Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the multiple counts pursuant to HRS § 701-109(1)(e), see supra note 9, the Hoopii court reasoned as follows:
HRS § 701—109(l)(e) prohibits multiple convictions where the defendant’s actions constitute an uninterrupted, continuing course of conduct. This prohibition, however, does not apply where these actions constitute separate offenses under the law. Furthermore,
where a defendant in the context of one criminal scheme or transaction commits several acts independently violative of one or more statutes, he may be punished for all of them if charges are properly consolidated by the [prosecution] in one trial.
State v. Pilago, 65 Haw. 22, 24, 649 P.2d 363, 365 (1982); State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14, 19, 514 P.2d 580, 585 (1973).
In this ease, [the defendant] committed and completed the act of kidnapping at the moment he restrained .the victim by abducting her, putting her in his van and driving away. Any restraint which continued throughout the subsequent rape and sodomy was not necessary to the perpetration of the kidnapping. State v. Decenso, 5 Haw.App. 127, 135, 681 P.2d 573, 580 (1984). [The defendant] would still be subject to prosecution for kidnapping had he not continued to restrain the victim throughout the rape and sodomy. Moreover, these later acts themselves constituted separate and independent offenses.
Id. at 251-52, 710 P.2d at 1197 (footnote omitted) (emphases added).
See also State v. Molitoni 6 Haw.App. 77, 79-80, 711 P.2d 1303, 1305-06 (holding, pursuant to HRS § 701-109, “that three separate criminal acts [against the complainant] occurred” where, in sequence and rapid order, the defendant “1) squeezed and sucked [the complainant’s] breasts; 2) touched her vagina with his hand and ‘put his fingers in [her]’; and 3) inserted his penis into her vagina” (some brackets in original and some added)), cert. denied, 68 Haw. 692 (1985),
c. The bottom line
Consistent with the foregoing, and based upon the plain language of the statutes, construed in pari materia within the framework of the entire statutory scheme governing sexual offenses, we hold18 that sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707—730(l)(b), and sexual assault in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 707—732(l)(b), are not—and cannot be— “continuing offenses” and that each distinct act in violation of these statutes constitutes a separate offense under the HPC.19 Were [22]*22this not the ease, “a person who has committed one sexual assault upon a victim [could] commit with impunity many other such acts during the same encounter,” and “the commission of one act ... would insulate the perpetrator from further criminal liability for any additional acts of the same character perpetrated on the same minor in subsequent encounters.” Snook, 555 A.2d at 399. We agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court that “[s]uch a result defies rationality,” id., and, as such, is an absurdity that we presume that the legislature did not intend. See Malufau, 80 Hawai'i at 137, 906 P.2d at 623.
3. Construing sexual assaults simultaneously as continuing and distinct offenses would violate the “Módica rule.”
We recognize that an argument could be made that although, consistent with the analysis set forth in section III.A.2. of this opinion, supra, the offenses described in HRS §§ 707-730(1)(b) and 707-732(1)(b) punish separate and distinct acts of sexual penetration and sexual contact committed against minors under fourteen years of age, they may nevertheless be treated as continuing offenses at the prosecution’s option. The simple response to such an argument would be that the construction of sexual assaults as simultaneously constituting continuing and distinct offenses would violate the rule established in State v. Modica, 58 Haw. 249, 567 P.2d 420 (1977), and expressly reaffirmed in State v. Kuuku, 61 Haw. 79, 595 P.2d 291 (1979).
This court has ruled that
[a] denial of [the] rights [to due process and the equal protection of the laws] would ... result ... if a violation of [a] misdemeanor statute ... would invariably and necessarily constitute a violation of [a] felony provision.... Thus, where the same act committed under the same circumstances is punishable either as a felony or as a misdemeanor, under either of two statutory provisions, and the elements of proof essential to either conviction are exactly the same, a conviction under the felony statute would constitute a violation of the defendant’s rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws.
[Modica], 58 Haw. [at] 250-51, 567 P.2d [at] 421-22 ... (citation omitted). The “Módica rule,” which applies equally to the possibility of prosecution and conviction under two differentially classed felonies (for example, under either a class [A] felony statute or a class C felony statute), was expressly reaffirmed in ... Kuuku, 61 Haw. [at] 80-81 [ & n. 1], 595 P.2d [at] 293 [&n. 1]....
Aluli 78 Hawai'i at 324, 893 P.2d at 175 (Levinson, J., concurring) (some brackets and ellipsis points in original and some added).
Construing HRS § 707-730(l)(b) and HRS § 707-732(l)(b) as simultaneously constituting continuing and distinct offenses would inevitably generate the very evils rendered unlawful by the Módica rule. First, a single violation of the “continuing” felony offense via the commission of multiple acts of sexual assault would invariably and necessarily constitute multiple and distinct violations of precisely the same felony statute. Second, and correlatively, the same acts committed under the same circumstances could, by virtue of the prosecution’s charging option or whim, be punishable either as a single offense or as multiple offenses, even though the elements of proof essential to either result would be exactly the same. See section III.A.l. of this opinion, supra.
Thus, to permit multiple convictions of the sexual assault statutes, when treated as describing “distinct” offenses, where only a single conviction could be obtained as a result of a violation of the same statutes, when treated as describing “continuing” offenses, would precipitate exactly the due process and equal protection violations that the Módica rule was designed to prevent. Cf. Gaylord, 78 Hawai'i at 138, 890 P.2d at 1178 (quoting [23]*23State v. Lee, 75 Haw. 80, 92-93, 856 P.2d 1246, 1254 (1993), for the propositions that (1) “[d]ue process of law requires that a penal statute state with reasonable clarity the act it proscribes and provide fixed standards for adjudicating guilt, or the statute is void for vagueness,” and (2) “a criminal statute is void for vagueness unless[ ] it ... provide[s] explicit standards for those who apply the statute, in order to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and the delegation] of basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (some brackets in original and some added).
B. Subject To An Election Of The Specific Acts Upon Which The Prosecution Was Seeking To Convict Arceo Of The Charged Offenses, Or, In The Alternative, “Specific Unanimity” Instructions To The Jury, The Minor’s Testimony Regarding Multiple Sexual Assaults Constituted Direct Evidence Of The Charged Offenses And, As Such, Did Not Relate To “Other” Crimes, Wrongs, Or Acts With Which HRE W(b) Is Concerned.
In support of his claim that the circuit court “erred in refusing to exclude evidence of other crimes and bad acts [that] were not probative of a fact in consequence and [that] were highly prejudicial and misleading to the jury,” Arceo advances the following argument:
[H]ere, the evidence of [multiple] acts of sexual penetration and sexual contact with the [Minor] served to show [Arceo’s] propensity to commit the crime and were not facts of consequence under [HRE] Rule 404(b).[20] Clearly, the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any possible probative value under [HRE] Rule 403.[21] Could not a juror have simply concluded: “[I]f the boy said he did all these things, he must have done some of them.” This evidence was highly prejudicial and misleading to the jury. Its admission by the trial court was [an] abuse of discretion.
Given the Minor’s testimony that, during the time period charged in the indictment, Arceo subjected him to five separate and distinct acts of sexual penetration22—twice by inserting his finger into the Minor’s anus (on each occasion, in the shower located in the shelter), once by inserting his penis into the Minor’s anus (while the Minor was sleeping on the bed provided by the shelter), and twice by performing fellatio upon the Minor (also while the Minor was in the bed)—and two separate and distinct acts of sexual contact 23—once by placing his penis on the Minor’s penis (while the Minor was in the bed) and once by placing his penis on the Minor’s back (also while the Minor was in the bed)—, combined with the circuit court’s reversible error in failing either to require the prosecution to make an election as to the specific acts upon which it was relying in seeking to convict Arceo of the two charged offenses, or, in the alternative, to give the jury a “specific unanimity” instruction with respect to each charged offense, see section III.C.2. of this opinion, infra, there is some cogency to Ar-ceo’s argument. In the absence of such reversible error, there is not.
As a thorough review of A. Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual §§ 404-1 through 404-3B (1990 & Supp.1995) [hereinafter, “Bowman on Evidence ”] suggests, HRE 404 is a complex rule about which there is much confusion. For present purposes, there is utility in going back to basics with respect to the raison d’etre of HRE 404(b). As Professor Bowman explains,
[t]he first sentence of [HRE] 404(b) reiterates the general exclusion of character evidence and precludes evidence of other crimes or similar bad acts when offered circumstantially to show propensity by means of the two-link inferential chain from previous behavior to character to action “in conformity therewith.” ... There is no discretion and there are no exceptions. The second sentence confirms an [24]*24obvious truth: The evidence may be admissible to prove “any other fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” But as the commentary [to HRE 404] points out, the use of the word “may” serves as a reminder that this species of evidence inherently raises the question of [HRE] 403 even when purposes other than propensity are presented.
Bowman on Evidence, § 404-2B at 106-07 (citation omitted) (emphases added). In other words, within the context of criminal cases24 and as applied to defendants therein, HRE 404(b) constitutes a limitation either on the use of evidence of “previous” crimes or on the use of bad acts “other” than, or “similar” to, the conduct that is an element of the offense or offenses with which the defendant is presently charged. The rule has no application to the use of evidence that is directly probative of an element of the charged offense or offenses.
Alston, supra, provides an apt illustration of the foregoing proposition. In that case, the defendant was convicted, inter alia, of terroristic threatening in the first degree, ie., threatening, by word or conduct and on more than one occasion, to cause bodily injury to the victim with the intent to terrorize, or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, the victim. Alston, 75 Haw. at 520, 525, 865 P.2d at 161, 163. The defendant urged on appeal that the trial court had erroneously disregarded HRE 403 and 404(b) by admitting into evidence certain statements that he had made to persons other than the victim, on the ground that the “sole and only purpose of the [prosecution’s] seeking to admit the evidence was to show [the defendant’s] propensity for committing bad and violent acts, matters which are clearly prejudicially inadmissible.” Id. at 537, 865 P.2d at 168 (some brackets added and some deleted). Citing State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 412-13, 862 P.2d 1063, 1071 (1993), for the principle that “the offense of terroristic threatening does not require that the person to whom the threats are directed actually be terrorized by the threats,” this court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his conviction, ruling that
the challenged statements were relevant as direct evidence of a material element of terroristic threatening.... [AJs direct evidence of the charged offense, a fortiori, the challenged statements did not constitute “other” crimes, wrongs, or acts with which HRE U0f(b) is concerned. For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged statements.
Id. at 542, 865 P.2d at 169-70 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
As we noted in section I. of this opinion, the prosecution stipulated that the indictment returned against Arceo in this case covered “all alleged sexual assaults of the [Mjinor by [Arceo] during the specified period while they were living on Maui.” As such, the two separate and distinct acts of sexual contact to which the Minor testified at trial were directly subsumed within Count One of the indictment, and the five separate and distinct acts of sexual penetration to which he testified at trial were directly subsumed within Count Two. The prosecution explained its aggregation of multiple acts of sexual assault within each count of the indictment— which, as we have held supra in section III.A.2.C. of this opinion, the prosecution mis-characterized as “continuing offenses”—on the basis that “[m]inors can rarely be expected to recall the specific date, time, and details of repeated sexual offense[s].”25
There is general agreement in the case law of other jurisdictions with the prosecution’s view of the foreseeable character of the testimony of child victims of repeated sexual assaults.26 For example, in People v. Aldrich, [26]*26849 P.2d 821 (Colo.Ct.App.1992), the court made the following observations:
In cases involving a continuing pattern of sexual abuse of very young children, in which the evidence consists primarily of the children’s statements, it is not likely that they will clearly identify the specific instances when particular acts took place. The difficulty of presenting testimony limited to a specific incident in such cases was discussed in State v. Brown, 55 Wash.App. 738, 780 P.2d 880 (1989):
Particularly when the accused resides with the victim or has virtually unchecked access to the child, and the abuse has occurred on a regular basis and in a consistent manner over a prolonged period of time, the child may have no meaningful reference point of time or detail by which to distinguish one specific act from another. The more frequent and repetitive the abuse, the more likely it becomes that the victim will be unable to recall specific dates and places. Moreover[,] because the molestation usually occurs outside the presence of witnesses, and often leaves no permanent physical evidence, the [prosecution’s] ease rests on the testimony of a victim whose memory may be clouded by a blur of abuse and a desire to forget.[27]
Id. at 825-26 (citation omitted). Cf. Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr at 623, 792 P.2d at 655 (“Recent studies have undermined traditional notions regarding the unreliability of child witnesses, their untruthfulness, susceptibility to leading questions, or inability to recall prior events accurately. ‘Empirical studies have produced results indicating that most of these traditional assumptions are completely unfounded.’ (Fote, Child Witnesses in Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings: Their Capabilities, Special Problems, and Proposals for Reform (1986) 13 Pepperdine L.Rev. 157, 158.)”) (additional citations omitted).
In Covington, supra, the Alaska Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of that state’s Evidence Rules 403 and 404(b), which are identical to HRE 403 and 404(b), to the testimony of child victims of sexual abuse as follows:28
[The defendant] filed a motion for a protective order [presumably the equivalent of a motion in limine] prohibiting the [prosecution] from introducing evidence of alleged sexual relations between [the defendant] and [the Minor] occurring prior to ... and after [the period covered by the indictment]. The trial court denied [the defendant’s] motion in reliance on Burke v. State, 624 P.2d 1240 (Alaska 1980). In Burke, the supreme court considered this issue in the context of Evidence Rule[s] 404(b) and ... 403. The court noted that where the specific crime charged was sexual abuse of a minor, the common law position supported by an overwhelming majority of states is that evidence of prior similar conduct with the same victim is admissible. 624 P.2d at 1247. The court affirmed admissibility of the evidence stressing that all of the acts involved the same victim. The court accepted two closely related rationales: first, the evidence tended to establish the ongoing relationship between the accused and the victim and explained, in part, the victim’s inability to specifically describe separate incidents; and, secondly, it served to explain the victim’s testimony in its context, particularly indicating why she might acquiesce in the defendant’s demands. 624 P.2d at 1249-50. We believe both of those rationales are applicable here [27]*27and justify the admission of the evidence. Given our holding today that the prosecution must either elect to prove a particular incident or that the jury must be instructed that it must unanimously agree on a particular incident,[29] we believe the evidence is highly material to explain the witness’ difficulties in specifying incidents so that her testimony may be considered in the context in which it arose.
Covington, 703 P.2d at 441 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
Combining the analyses set forth in Aldrich and Covington, supra, we hold as a threshold matter that, by virtue of the vulnerabilities to which child victims of repeated instances of sexual abuse are susceptible, the prosecution may, at its option, seek a single conviction by charging multiple acts, each of which constitutes a separate and distinct sexual assault, within a single count of an indictment or complaint.30 We therefore hold that, if the prosecution does so, then testimony regarding any or all of the multiple acts is “direct evidence of the charged offense” and does not implicate “ ‘other’ crimes, wrongs, or acts with which HRE 404(b) is concerned.”31 See Alston, 75 Haw. at 542, 865 P.2d at 170; see also Bowman on Evidence, § 404-2B at 106-07.32 Thus, for the reasons stated in Covington, 703 P.2d at 441, we hold that the probative value of the testimony would outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant and would survive a challenge under HRE 403.
C. In Light Of The Constitutional Right To A Unanimous Verdict In A Criminal Case, When Evidence Of Multiple Culpable Acts Is Adduced In Support Of A Single Count Charging A Defendant With A Sexual Assault, Considerations Of Due Process Mandate That The Trial Court Either Require The Prosecution, At The Close Of Its Case-In-Chief, To Elect The Specific Act On Which It Is Relying To Establish The “Conduct” Element Of The Charged Offense, Or, In The Alternative, Give The Jury A “Specific Unanimity” Instruction.
As his final point of error on appeal, Arceo contends that, by virtue of his constitutional right to be free from a criminal conviction other than by a unanimous verdict in a jury trial, and “given the number of different acts alleged, [he] could not get a fair trial unless [either] the [prosecution] was required to identify the specific act of sexual contact and the specific act of sexual penetration for which it was seeking the two convictions [or] ... the [trial] court [was required to] ... instruct[ ] the jury that [it] must unanimously agree on the same act[s] in reaching ... guilty verdict[s].” We agree.
1. Article I, sections 5 and U of the Hawaii Constitution mandate that a criminal conviction in a jury trial must be by unanimous verdict.
It is well established in this jurisdiction that a “fair trial ... is guaranteed to the [28]*28criminally accused by both the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, [section] 14 of the Hawaii Constitution, as well as by principles of due process under both the state and federal constitutions.” Furutani 76 Hawaii at 179, 873 P.2d at 58 (citations and quotation signals omitted) (some brackets added and some omitted). A criminal defendant’s right to due process under state law is codified in article I, section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution. See supra note 3.
In this connection, although it is not expressly stated therein, the right of an accused to a unanimous verdict in federal criminal prosecutions is subsumed within the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution.33 Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748, 68 S.Ct. 880, 884, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948). However, a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court has held that the fourteenth amendment does not mandate unanimous verdicts for convictions in criminal prosecutions in state courts. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 359, 363, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 1623, 1625, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); see also Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972).34 Nevertheless, we have long recognized, “beginning with State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 142 n. 2, 433 P.2d 593, 597 n. 2 (1967), that ‘as the ultimate judicial tribunal with final, unreviewable authority to interpret and enforce the Hawaii Constitution, we are free to give broader protection under the Hawaii Constitution than that given by the federal constitution.’ ” Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 397 n. 14, 910 P.2d at 710 n. 14 (quoting Hoey, 77 Hawai'i at 36, 881 P.2d at 523). A fortiori, it follows that we are free to give the same protection under our state constitution as that given by the federal constitution, even if we are not bound by the fourteenth amendment to do so.35
[29]*29The Organic Act, 31 Stat. 141, ch. 339, promulgated by the United States Congress on April 30, 1900 “to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii,” dictated in relevant part that “[n]o person shall be convicted in any criminal case except by unanimous verdict of the jury.” Id. at § 83.. The controlling law of Hawai'i has remained consistent in this regard ever since.
The Admissions Act of March 18, 1959, Pub.L. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4, by which Congress effected the admission of the State of Hawaii into the United States, provided in relevant part that admission “shall effect no change in the ... criminal law governing such ... criminal offenses which shall have arisen or been committed.” Id. at § 12. Article I, section 14 of the Hawaii Constitution (1978), which is the state’s analogue to the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, provides in relevant part that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury....” By contrast, article I, section 13, which is the state’s analogue to the seventh amendment to the United States Constitution,36 preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases, subject to the caveat that “[t]he legislature may provide for a verdict by not less than three-fourths of the members of the jury.”
The statutory codifications of the foregoing constitutional principles are located in HRS ch. 635 (1993). With respect to both criminal and civil trials, HRS § 635-13 (1993) provides that “[w]hen the right of trial by jury is given by the Constitution or a statute of the United States or this State and the right has not been waived, the case shall be tried with a jury.” HRS § 635-20 (1993) provides that “[i]n all civil cases tried before a jury it shall be sufficient for the return of a verdict if at least five-sixths of the jurors agree on the verdict.” (Emphasis added.)
Article VI, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution (1978) provides that this court “shall have power to promulgate rules and regulations in all civil and criminal cases for all courts relating to process, practice, procedure and appeals, which shall have the force and effect of law.” HRS § 602-11 (1993) contains the identical language, except that it deletes any reference to “regulations.” Having “the force and effect of law,” this court’s rules of court are analogous to statutes. State v. Merino, 81 Hawai'i 198, 217 n. 20, 915 P.2d 672, 691 n. 20 (1996). Pursuant to this constitutionally and statutorily conferred authority, this court has promulgated HRPP 31(a), -which provides in relevant part that verdicts in criminal cases “shall be unanimous, unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties.” By contrast, Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 48 provides in relevant part that the parties to a civil action “may stipulate ... that a verdict ... of a stated majority of the jurors shall be taken as the verdict ... of the jury.”
In State v. Shak, 51 Haw. 612, 466 P.2d 422 (1970), this court recognized that
[t]he Hawaiian counterpart of the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution is Art. I, Sec. 11 [now article I, section 14] of our State Constitution. It is modeled on the 6th amendment, and we have said that in interpreting it we will look to the federal case law on the subject as a guide, pursuant to the expressed intent of the draftsmen of our constitution.
Shak, 51 Haw. at 615, 466 P.2d at 424 (citing State v. Wong, 47 Haw. 361, 385, 389 P.2d 439, 452 (1964)).
With Shak in mind, we apply HRS § 1-16 (1993) (mandating that laws in pari materia be construed with reference to each other), and the principles of noscitur a soci-[30]*30is37 and expressio unius est exclusio alteri-us38 to the foregoing federal and state constitutional provisions, congressional acts, state statutes, and court rules. Inasmuch as (1) the inviolable right to a unanimous jury verdict in criminal (as opposed to civil) cases is an essential element of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, see Andres, 333 U.S. at 748, 68 S.Ct. at 884, (2) that right has been an integral and consistent component of Hawai'i law at least since the promulgation by Congress of the Organic Act in 1900, and (3) the global right to a fair trial—within which the right to a unanimous verdict in criminal jury trials would be subsumed—is guaranteed, inter alia, by article I, section 14 and the concept of due process enshrined in article I, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution, see Furutani, 76 Hawai'i at 179, 873 P.2d at 58, we look to Andres as a guide in interpreting article I, sections 5 and 14 with respect to those rights, pursuant to the expressed intent of the framers of the Ha-wai'i Constitution. Because Andres and its progeny, see Johnson and Apodaca, hold that the right to a unanimous jury verdict in criminal eases is guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, we in turn hold that the right of an accused to a unanimous verdict in a criminal prosecution, tried before a jury in a court of this state, is guaranteed by article I, sections 5 and 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution. See State v. Iosefa, 77 Hawai'i 177, 185, 880 P.2d 1224, 1232 (App.) (implicitly recognizing that defendant “was entitled to a unanimous verdict” as to the charged offense), cert. dismissed, 77 Hawai'i 373, 884 P.2d 1149 (1994).
2. Election of specific act on which the prosecution intends to rely and “specific unanimity” instruction
As an adjunct of its holding that unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the sixth amendment applies, and in light of the fact that a general “verdict embodies in a single finding the conclusions by the jury upon all questions submitted to it,” the United States Supreme Court has held that, “[i]n criminal eases[,] this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues ... which are left to the jury.” Andres, 333 U.S. at 748, 68 S.Ct. at 884. We have held that the same requirement inheres in article I, sections 5 and 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution. See section III. C.l. of this opinion, supra. Therefore, inasmuch as, pursuant to this “precept of constitutional ... law, ... an accused in a criminal ease can only be convicted upon proof by the prosecution of every material element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt,” Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 406, 910 P.2d at 719 (quoting State v. Puaoi 78 Hawai'i 185, 191, 891 P.2d 272, 278 (1995)) (emphasis and brackets deleted), the constitutional “precept” also implicates the defendant’s right to due process of law, see losefa, 77 Hawai'i at 182, 880 P.2d at 1229; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), and the elements of sexual assault in the first and third degree include, respectively, particular acts of sexual penetration and sexual contact, see section III.A.2. and 3. of this opinion, supra, we now squarely address Arceo’s contention—given the Minor’s testimony that Arceo committed multiple acts of sexual penetration and sexual contact within the context of single counts charging each—that either the prosecution was required to elect the specific acts upon which it was relying in seeking convictions of the charged offenses or the circuit court was required to give the jury a “specific unanimity” instruction as to each count. Arceo’s point of error raises a question of first impression in this jurisdiction.
The jurisdictions requiring unanimity of jury verdicts in criminal cases and holding that sexual assaults are not “continuing offenses” appear to be in agreement that, where evidence of multiple culpable acts is adduced to prove a single charged offense, [31]*31the defendant is entitled either to an election by the prosecution of the single act upon which it is relying for a conviction or to a specific unanimity instruction. For example, in Petrich, the defendant
was charged with one count of indecent liberties and one count of second degree statutory rape. At trial, numerous incidents of sexual contact were described in varying detail. He was convicted on both counts and [sought] review of his convictions, contending that the [prosecution’s] failure to elect the act upon which it relied for each conviction deprived him of his right to a unanimous jury verdict.
[[Image here]]
At the end of the [prosecution’s] case, the defense moved to compel the [prosecution] to elect which offense was to be relied on for conviction, arguing that [the] defendant was charged with only one count of each offense but [that] the evidence showed several incidents. Defense counsel pointed out that unless the jury agreed on one particular incident as the basis for each charge, the verdict would not be unanimous. The [prosecution] responded that one continuing offense had been charged. The motion to compel election was denied.
683 P.2d at 176. Holding that “the trial court’s failure to ensure a unanimous verdict warranted] a new trial,” id., the Petrich court engaged in the following analysis, which we deem to be highly persuasive:
[The defendant] concedes that an instruction was not requested which could have informed the jury that it must unanimously agree on the same criminal act for conviction on each charge.... Under the circumstances, [the defendant’s] failure to request an instruction did not waive his objection. [The defendant] made a proper motion before the trial court, fully apprising the court of his argument and its legal basis. The denial of that motion was reasonably interpreted as the trial court’s final decision on the matter. Renewal of [the defendant’s] argument, in the form of a jury instruction based on the same claim, was not required to preserve this issue.
When the evidence indicates that several distinct criminal acts have been committed, but [the] defendant is charged with only one count of criminal conduct, jury unanimity must be protected.... The [prosecution] may, in its discretion, elect the act upon which it will rely for conviction. Alternatively, if the jury is instructed that all 12 jurors must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a unanimous verdict on one criminal act will be assured. When the [prosecution] chooses not to elect, this jury instruction must be given to ensure the jury’s understanding of the unanimity requirement.
These options are allowed because, in the majority of cases in which this issue will arise, the charge will involve crimes against children. Multiple instances of criminal conduct with the same victim is a frequent, if not the usual, pattern. Note, The Crime of Incest Against the Minor Child and the States’ Statutory Responses, 17 J.Fam.Law 93, 99 (1978-79). Whether the incidents are to be charged separately or brought as one charge is a decision within prosecutorial discretion. Many factors are weighed in making that decision, including the victim’s ability to testify to specific times and places. Our decision in this case is not intended to hamper that discretion or encourage the bringing of multiple charges when, in the prosecutor’s judgment, they are not warranted. The criteria used to determine that only a single charge should be brought[ ] may indicate that the election of one particular act for conviction is impractical. In such circumstances, [the] defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict will be protected with proper jury instructions.
In [the defendant’s] case, the evidence indicated multiple instances of conduct which could have been the basis for each charge. The victim described some incidents with detail and specificity. Others were simply acknowledged, with attendant confusion as to date and place, and uncertainty regarding the type of sexual contact that took place.. The [prosecution] was not required [by the trial court] to elect, nor was jury unanimity ensured with a clarify[32]*32ing instruction.... [The defendant] is entitled to a new trial.
Id. at 178.
See also Covington, 703 P.2d at 440-41 (relying on Petrich analysis and holding, where (1) defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, (2) evidence of several distinct criminal acts could support each count, and (3) prosecution “did not elect specific incidents, nor was a clarifying instruction given,” that reversible error was committed, thus entitling defendant to new trial); Aldrich, 849 P.2d at 825 (relying on Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo.1990), and Woertman v. People, 804 P.2d 188 (Colo.1991), and holding that defendant’s right to unanimous jury agreement was ensured because, (1) “although the trial court denied the defendant’s pre-trial motion to compel an election, at the close of the trial, the trial court did compel the prosecutor to elect the specific incidents of conduct upon which it relied,” (2) “the jury ultimately was instructed as to the specific incidents upon which the charges were based,” and (3) the jury “was also given a unanimity instruction” (emphasis omitted)); State v. Brown, 762 S.W.2d 135, 137 (Tenn.1988) (holding that prosecution was required to elect specific offense upon which guilty verdict was demanded, where evidence showed two separate instances of sexual battery on six-year-old girl).
Although not arising in the context of sexual assaults committed against young children, a line of federal decisions supports a requirement that the jury be given a specific unanimity instruction under the circumstances of this ease. See United States v. Echeverry, 719 F.2d 974, 975 (9th Cir.1983) (“When it appears ... that a conviction may occur as a result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice. To correct any potential confusion in such a case, the trial judge must augment the general instruction to ensure [that] the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts.”); United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832, 836-37 (9th Cir.1986) (ruling that there was “the genuine possibility that some jurors may have believed [that the defendant] used extortionate means on one occasion while others may have believed that he was guilty of engaging in extortion at a different time and place,” and that “Echeverry clearly sets forth the rule that we are not free to speculate about what the jurors agreed to in their ... deliberation over [the defendant’s] guilt or innocence,” and, accordingly, holding that “a general unanimity instruction will not suffice when the possibility of such jury confusion exists” and that the trial court committed plain error in failing to give a specific unanimity instruction); United States v. Gilley, 836 F.2d 1206, 1211-13 (9th Cir.1988) (reaffirming Echeverry and Payseno and holding that (1) there was “a genuine possibility that the jurors were not unanimous as to the conjunction of two of the material elements of the crime,” (2) “[t]his [was] not a case where the ease was sufficiently simple and clear in its presentation that unanimity [could] be assumed based on the general [unanimity] instruction,” (3) “[r]ather, it [was] a case involving a sufficiently complex set of facts requiring the judge sua sponte to give a specific unanimity instruction,” (4) “[bjecause the deficiency in the trial judge’s instructions prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights to a unanimous jury verdict ..., ... plain error occurred,” and (5) “a conviction for conducting an illegal gambling business ... cannot stand where the guilty verdict cannot with reasonable certainty be said to stem from a unanimous verdict” (citations and quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1318-20 (9th Cir.) (reaffirming Echeverry, Payseno, and Gilley), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 416, 107 L.Ed.2d 381 (1989); United States v. Jerome, 942 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1991) (reaffirming Echeverry and Gilley).
In our view, the logic of Petrich, Covington, Aldrich, Brown, and the line of federal decisions arising out of Echeverry is cogent, compelling, and ineluctable. Accordingly, we hold that when separate and distinct culpable acts are subsumed within a single count charging a sexual assault—any one of which could support a conviction thereunder—and the defendant is ultimately convicted by a jury of the charged offense, the defendant’s constitutional right to a [33]*33unanimous verdict is violated unless one or both of the following occurs: (1) at or before the close of its case-in-chief, the prosecution is required to elect the specific act upon which it is relying to establish the “conduct” element of the charged offense; or (2) the trial court gives the jury a specific unanimity instruction, ie., an instruction that advises the jury that all twelve of its members must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.39
Although, as noted in section I. of this opinion, supra, Arceo argued, in support of his motion in limine, that the prosecution should be required to elect the particular acts on which it was relying in seeking convictions of the charged offenses, he neither objected to the circuit court’s general unanimity instructions to the jury nor requested a specific unanimity instruction and therefore alleges plain error on appeal regarding the defective jury instructions. “We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant.” Horswill, 75 Haw. at 155, 857 P.2d at 581-82 (citing Kelekolio, 74 Haw. at 515, 849 P.2d at 75); see also Kinnane, 79 Hawai'i at 50, 897 P.2d at 977 (“[I]t may be plain error for a trial court to fail to give an ... instruction even when neither the prosecution nor the defendant have requested it ... because ... the ultimate responsibility properly to instruct the jury lies with the circuit court and not with trial counsel”) (Citation, internal quotation signals, and footnote omitted.) (Emphasis deleted.); HRPP 52(b) (1995) (“Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”).
We need not decide whether, pursuant to the reasoning of Petrich, by expressly seeking an order requiring the prosecution to elect the culpable acts on which it relied for convictions, Arceo impliedly preserved the point of error regarding the circuit court’s failure to give a specific unanimity instruction because, insofar as the circuit court erroneously failed to observe either of the options mandated in the preceding paragraph, Ar-eeo’s substantial constitutional right to unanimous jury verdicts was prejudiced in such a manner as to give rise to plain error. And inasmuch as we cannot say that there was no reasonable possibility that the circuit court’s error contributed to Arceo’s convictions, we hold that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Holbron, 80 Hawai'i at 32, 904 P.2d at 917.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate Ar-ceo’s judgment of conviction and remand the matter for a new trial40 consistent with this opinion.
NAKAYAMA, J., dissents.
7. HRS § 806-46 (1993) provides:
Objections to indictment. Every objection to any indictment for any defect apparent on the face thereof, shall be taken by demurrer or motion to quash the indictment before the accused has pleaded and not afterwards; and every court before which any such objection is taken for the defect may, if it is thought necessary, cause the indictment to be forthwith amended in that particular by some officer of the court or other person, and thereupon the trial shall proceed as if no defect had appeared; and no motion in arrest of judgment shall be allowed for any defect in any indictment which might have been taken advantage of by demurrer or motion to quash as aforesaid.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
928 P.2d 843, 84 Haw. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arceo-haw-1996.