State v. Olson

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 22, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000756
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-JAN-2026 07:48 AM Dkt. 58 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORRESTE OLSON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DCC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Forreste Olson (Olson) appeals from

the December 4, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order

(Judgment) entered by the District Court of the First Circuit,

Honolulu Division (District Court).1 Plaintiff-Appellee State of

Hawai i (State) charged Olson with one count of Harassment, in

violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(b)

(2014).2 After a bench trial, the District Court found Olson

guilty as charged and fined Olson $200 and fees.

1 The Honorable David M. Hayakawa presided at trial and entered the Judgment. 2 § 711-1106 Harassment. (1) A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, that person:

. . . .

(b) Insults, taunts, or challenges another person in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response or that would cause the other person to reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the recipient or another[.] NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Olson raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that the District Court erred in failing to grant his

motion for judgment of acquittal. Olson also argues that he was

provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

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 Olson's

appeal as follows:

(1) Olson argues that he should have been acquitted

because the State failed to prove all the essential elements of

harassment. Under Hawai i law, the essential elements of

harassment are: (1) the actor, "with intent to harass, annoy, or

alarm" another; (2) "[i]nsults, taunts, or challenges" the

recipient; (3) "in a manner likely to provoke an immediate

violent response or that would cause the other person to

reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury

to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the

recipient or another[.]" HRS § 711-1106(1)(b). The first two

elements are not at issue.

Rather, Olson argues that, even viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the State, there was no substantial

evidence that Olson's words to his neighbor (the complaining

witness), David Butterfield (Butterfield), would likely produce a

violent response from Butterfield. We note that Olson disregards

the alternative stated in the third element – that the conduct

would cause the other person to reasonably believe that the actor

intends to cause bodily injury. More importantly, the District

Court found there was "specific evidence" that Olson "taunted

and/or challenged another person in a manner . . . I'm going to -

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

- I'm going to kill you, I'm going to kick your ass, which was

likely to provoke a violent response or that would put somebody

in reasonable belief that they were subject to bodily injury."

This finding and conclusion was supported by Butterfield's

testimony. The District Court credited Butterfield's testimony

that included, inter alia, that on June 3, 2023, the date of the

incident underlying the Harassment charge, Olson confronted

Butterfield, challenged him to a fight, said he was going to kick

his ass, and threatened to beat him up or kill him. We conclude

that Olson's argument concerning insufficient evidence is without

merit.

(2) Olson also argues that his attorney was

ineffective because counsel did not sufficiently cross examine

Butterfield concerning all of the previous times that Olson

threatened Butterfield. Olson maintains that more effective

cross could have shown that Butterfield did not reasonably and

objectively believe that Olson would injure him or that

Butterfield would respond violently, resulting in the loss of a

potentially meritorious defense.

Under Hawai i law, "[s]pecific acts or omissions

alleged to be error but which had an obvious tactical basis for

benefitting the defendant's case will not be subject to further

scrutiny." State v. DeLeon, 131 Hawai i 463, 479, 319 P.3d 382,

398 (2014) (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Hawai i 423, 427, 879 P.2d

528, 532 (1994)). Here, delving more deeply into Olson's prior

aggressive and threatening behavior would be a risky tactic for a

defense lawyer, as it would tend to show the defendant in a very

negative light without adding any evidence that would tend to

show whether Butterfield reasonably believed that Olson would

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

carry through on his threats and injure or kill him this time.

Not pursuing this line of testimony had an obvious tactical basis

and we cannot conclude that counsel was ineffective based on this

argument.

For these reasons, the District Court's December 4,

2023 Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 22, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Eric Lee Niemeyer, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth City & County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.