NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-JUN-2026 07:57 AM Dkt. 79 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTIN JOSHUA SERRANO EUGENIO, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Justin Joshua Serrano Eugenio
(Eugenio) appeals from the May 21, 2024 Judgment of Conviction
and Probation Sentence (Judgment) entered against him by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1
On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai i (the State) filed a Felony Information charging Eugenio
with Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a Minor in violation of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1209.1(1)(a) (Supp. 2021).
The charge arose from an undercover police operation in which
Maui Police Department (MPD) Detective John Surina (Detective
Surina) posed as an underage female prostitute online (the
1 The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
persona).2 At the conclusion of a January 2024 trial, a jury
found Eugenio guilty of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a
Minor.
Eugenio raises three points of error on appeal,
contending there is a reasonable possibility that: (1) the
Circuit Court's failure to provide a mistake of fact jury
instruction contributed to the conviction; (2) that Hawai i Jury
Instructions Criminal (HAWJIC) 7.08 contributed to the
conviction; and (3) the Circuit Court's omission of HAWJIC 7.09
contributed to the conviction.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Eugenio's points of error as follows:
(1) Eugenio argues the evidence elicited at trial made
a mistake of fact instruction necessary. Specifically, Eugenio
argues that the record demonstrates that the police created the
impression that the persona was an adult by initially listing her
age at 19 and using photos of an adult woman. Eugenio contends
that this evidence is credible evidence constituting the mistake
of fact defense as to the persona's age.
To convict a defendant of Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of a Minor in violation of HRS § 712-1209.1(1)(a) 3,
2 The operation was a joint effort between MPD, Honolulu Police Department (HPD), and state and federal agencies. 3 HRS § 712-1209.1 states, in relevant part:
§ 712-1209.1 Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor. (1) A person eighteen years of age or older commits the offense of commercial sexual exploitation of a minor if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (continued...)
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
(1) was 18 years or older and (2) intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly, (3) offered or agreed to provide anything of value to
a law enforcement officer who represents themselves to be a
The trial court has the primary responsibility to
ensure that the jury is properly instructed. State v. Henley,
136 Hawai i 471, 479, 363 P.3d 319, 327 (2015). Hawai i appellate
courts employ a two-step framework to determine whether a circuit
court should have sua sponte instructed the jury on mistake of
fact. State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai i 196, 206, 307 P.3d 1142, 1152
(2013). First, the court looks to whether the trial court
plainly erred in failing to give a mistake of fact instruction.
Id. at 207-08, 307 P.3d at 1153-54. "[P]lain error affecting
substantial rights exists if the defendant had met his or her
initial burden at trial of adducing credible evidence of facts
constituting the defense (or those facts are supplied by the
prosecution's witnesses)." Id. at 205, 307 P.3d at 1151
(footnote omitted). Credible evidence is evidence from which the
Circuit Court could conclude "that the evidence offered
reasonable grounds for being believed, i.e., that a reasonable
juror could harbor a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's
guilt" Id. at 207, 307 P.3d at 1153 (quotation marks omitted).
Where there is plain error, we reverse "only if an examination of
3 (...continued) (a) Offers or agrees to provide anything of value to a member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer who represents that person's self as a minor to engage in sexual conduct[.]
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the record as a whole reveals that the error was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 208, 307 P.3d at 1154.
We conclude that there is no credible evidence in the
record supporting a mistake of fact defense. First, HRS § 712-
1209.1(1)(a) prohibits, inter alia, the act of recklessly
offering or agreeing to provide anything of value to a law
enforcement officer who represents themselves to be a minor, and
a violation of this statute does not rest on the "fact" of the
persona's age. Here, there was testimony at trial that Detective
Surina represented, multiple times, that the officer's persona
was a minor. More specifically, while the persona's age was
initially listed on a website as 19, Detective Surina proceeded
to represent the persona's age as 16 on three separate occasions.
Eugenio's responses indicate his knowledge of the representation
as to age. In response to the first message that the persona was
16, Eugenio responded "now knowing that fact I would want price
drop." (Emphasis added). When Detective Surina asked if Eugenio
was okay with the persona's age, Eugenio responded, "[p]romise
your not telling anybody cuz I can get into serious trouble
including getting arrested?" Based on the evidence elicited at
trial, we cannot conclude that a reasonable juror could harbor a
reasonable doubt that Eugenio was mistaken as to the officer's
representation of the persona's age. Indeed, these
representations are not negated by the fact that the pictures
provided by Detective Surina depicted a woman who was not a minor
and/or did not appear to Eugenio to be a minor. Therefore, we
conclude that the Circuit Court did not commit plain error in
failing to instruct the jury on mistake of fact.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2) Eugenio argues that HAWJIC 7.08 "does not provide
an adequate instruction on the objective standard applicable to
an entrapment defense." Eugenio argues this prejudiced his
defense because the jury asked if there was a legal definition of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-JUN-2026 07:57 AM Dkt. 79 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTIN JOSHUA SERRANO EUGENIO, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Justin Joshua Serrano Eugenio
(Eugenio) appeals from the May 21, 2024 Judgment of Conviction
and Probation Sentence (Judgment) entered against him by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1
On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai i (the State) filed a Felony Information charging Eugenio
with Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a Minor in violation of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1209.1(1)(a) (Supp. 2021).
The charge arose from an undercover police operation in which
Maui Police Department (MPD) Detective John Surina (Detective
Surina) posed as an underage female prostitute online (the
1 The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
persona).2 At the conclusion of a January 2024 trial, a jury
found Eugenio guilty of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a
Minor.
Eugenio raises three points of error on appeal,
contending there is a reasonable possibility that: (1) the
Circuit Court's failure to provide a mistake of fact jury
instruction contributed to the conviction; (2) that Hawai i Jury
Instructions Criminal (HAWJIC) 7.08 contributed to the
conviction; and (3) the Circuit Court's omission of HAWJIC 7.09
contributed to the conviction.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Eugenio's points of error as follows:
(1) Eugenio argues the evidence elicited at trial made
a mistake of fact instruction necessary. Specifically, Eugenio
argues that the record demonstrates that the police created the
impression that the persona was an adult by initially listing her
age at 19 and using photos of an adult woman. Eugenio contends
that this evidence is credible evidence constituting the mistake
of fact defense as to the persona's age.
To convict a defendant of Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of a Minor in violation of HRS § 712-1209.1(1)(a) 3,
2 The operation was a joint effort between MPD, Honolulu Police Department (HPD), and state and federal agencies. 3 HRS § 712-1209.1 states, in relevant part:
§ 712-1209.1 Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor. (1) A person eighteen years of age or older commits the offense of commercial sexual exploitation of a minor if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (continued...)
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
(1) was 18 years or older and (2) intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly, (3) offered or agreed to provide anything of value to
a law enforcement officer who represents themselves to be a
The trial court has the primary responsibility to
ensure that the jury is properly instructed. State v. Henley,
136 Hawai i 471, 479, 363 P.3d 319, 327 (2015). Hawai i appellate
courts employ a two-step framework to determine whether a circuit
court should have sua sponte instructed the jury on mistake of
fact. State v. Taylor, 130 Hawai i 196, 206, 307 P.3d 1142, 1152
(2013). First, the court looks to whether the trial court
plainly erred in failing to give a mistake of fact instruction.
Id. at 207-08, 307 P.3d at 1153-54. "[P]lain error affecting
substantial rights exists if the defendant had met his or her
initial burden at trial of adducing credible evidence of facts
constituting the defense (or those facts are supplied by the
prosecution's witnesses)." Id. at 205, 307 P.3d at 1151
(footnote omitted). Credible evidence is evidence from which the
Circuit Court could conclude "that the evidence offered
reasonable grounds for being believed, i.e., that a reasonable
juror could harbor a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's
guilt" Id. at 207, 307 P.3d at 1153 (quotation marks omitted).
Where there is plain error, we reverse "only if an examination of
3 (...continued) (a) Offers or agrees to provide anything of value to a member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer who represents that person's self as a minor to engage in sexual conduct[.]
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the record as a whole reveals that the error was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 208, 307 P.3d at 1154.
We conclude that there is no credible evidence in the
record supporting a mistake of fact defense. First, HRS § 712-
1209.1(1)(a) prohibits, inter alia, the act of recklessly
offering or agreeing to provide anything of value to a law
enforcement officer who represents themselves to be a minor, and
a violation of this statute does not rest on the "fact" of the
persona's age. Here, there was testimony at trial that Detective
Surina represented, multiple times, that the officer's persona
was a minor. More specifically, while the persona's age was
initially listed on a website as 19, Detective Surina proceeded
to represent the persona's age as 16 on three separate occasions.
Eugenio's responses indicate his knowledge of the representation
as to age. In response to the first message that the persona was
16, Eugenio responded "now knowing that fact I would want price
drop." (Emphasis added). When Detective Surina asked if Eugenio
was okay with the persona's age, Eugenio responded, "[p]romise
your not telling anybody cuz I can get into serious trouble
including getting arrested?" Based on the evidence elicited at
trial, we cannot conclude that a reasonable juror could harbor a
reasonable doubt that Eugenio was mistaken as to the officer's
representation of the persona's age. Indeed, these
representations are not negated by the fact that the pictures
provided by Detective Surina depicted a woman who was not a minor
and/or did not appear to Eugenio to be a minor. Therefore, we
conclude that the Circuit Court did not commit plain error in
failing to instruct the jury on mistake of fact.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2) Eugenio argues that HAWJIC 7.08 "does not provide
an adequate instruction on the objective standard applicable to
an entrapment defense." Eugenio argues this prejudiced his
defense because the jury asked if there was a legal definition of
the term "inducement," indicating their confusion. Eugenio
maintains that the term inducement frames "the first element in
terms of what Mr. Eugenio did or why," and therefore "blurred the
line between a subjective and objective standard."
To determine whether a jury instruction is adequate,
the key inquiry is whether the instruction was insufficient,
inconsistent, or misleading. State v. Lagat, 97 Hawai i 492,
500, 40 P.3d 894, 902 (2002). Where the plain language of a
statute is clear and unambiguous, a jury instruction that tracks
the language of the statute is generally adequate. Id.
(instruction that tracked statutory language was not erroneous
where statute was clear and instruction adequately explained the
applicable law); Armstrong v. Cione, 6 Haw. App. 652, 661, 736
P.2d 440, 447 (1987) (holding that reading the statute verbatim
to the jury is a sufficient instruction where statutory language
was "very simple and easy to understand"); Fredricksen v. Dyas,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2021 WL 305750, *6 (Jan. 29, 2021) (mem.
op.) (jury instruction was not misleading where it tracked
statutory language verbatim); State v. Scott, No. 30499, 2011 WL
1878851, *2 (May 12, 2011) (SDO).
In State v. Anderson, the Supreme Court of Hawai i held
that "the language of HRS [§] 702-237 fully comports with the
objective view of entrapment." 58 Haw. 479, 484, 572 P.2d 159,
162 (1977). The court reasoned that the statute's language
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
focuses "on the police conduct and its probable effect on a
'reasonable person.' No attention is directed toward the state
of mind of the particular defendant in determining the entrapment
issue." Id.
Here, HAWJIC 7.08 tracks HRS § 702-237 nearly
verbatim.4 Like the statutory language, HAWJIC 7.08 "fully
comports with the objective view of entrapment." Because HAWJIC
4 HAWJIC 7.08 states, in relevant part:
Entrapment is an affirmative defense to the charge(s) of (specify charge(s) and any instructed included offense(s)). A person is entrapped if he/she engaged in the prohibited conduct or caused the prohibited result because he/she was induced or encouraged to do so by a law enforcement officer [or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer] who, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, employed methods of persuasion or inducement which created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.
Entrapment has two elements.
These two elements are:
1. That the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct or caused the prohibited result because he/she was induced or encouraged to do so by a law enforcement officer [or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer]; and
2. That the law enforcement officer [or a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer] did, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, employ methods of persuasion or inducement which created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.
HRS § 702-237 states, in relevant part:
§ 702-237 Entrapment. (1) In any prosecution, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct or caused the prohibited result because the defendant was induced or encouraged to do so by a law enforcement officer, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer, who, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, either: (a) Knowingly made false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct or result was not prohibited; or (b) Employed methods of persuasion or inducement which created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
7.08 "adequately and understandably apprised the jury of the law
to be applied in its deliberation," we conclude that the Circuit
Court did not err in using HAWJIC 7.08. See Lagat, 97 Hawai i at
500, 40 P.3d at 902.
(3) Eugenio argues that the Circuit Court erred in
failing to instruct the jury with HAWJIC 7.09 because Detective
Surina initially listed the persona's age as 19 and gave Eugenio
pictures of an adult. Eugenio contends that this could lead a
rational jury to find that "law enforcement 'knowingly made false
representations designed to induce'" Eugenio to believe that his
conduct was not "prohibited."
HAWJIC 7.09 states in relevant part: Entrapment has two elements.
1. That the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct or caused the prohibited result because he/she was induced or encouraged to do so by a law enforcement officer [or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer]; and
2. That the law enforcement officer [or a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement officer] did, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, knowingly make false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct or result was not prohibited.
Here, there is no evidence in the record that a law
enforcement officer made a false representation that would induce
a belief that the conduct prohibited by HRS § 712-1209.1(1)(a) is
legal. As discussed above, although Detective Surina initially
posted the persona's age was 19, he informed Eugenio multiple
times that the persona's age was 16. At no point did any law
enforcement officer represent that trading something of value to
engage in sexual conduct with a minor is not prohibited by law.
Because there was no evidence in the record of law enforcement
making a false statement to induce Eugenio's violative conduct,
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
we conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in declining to
submit HAWJIC 7.09 to the jury.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's May 21, 2024
Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 19, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Matthew Mannisto (Law Office of Matthew /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Mannisto), Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellant /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen David M. Van Acker, Associate Judge Leigh M. Okimoto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff-Appellee