State v. Tadiarca-Warner

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000514
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-DEC-2025 08:33 AM Dkt. 92 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC G. TADIARCA-WARNER, Defendant-Appellant.

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Eric G. Tadiarca-Warner appeals

from the District Court of the First Circuit's July 15, 2024

Judgment and Sentence, convicting him of Terroristic Threatening

in the Second Degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 707-717(1) (2014) and sentencing him to thirty days'

imprisonment with credit for time served. 1

On appeal, Tadiarca-Warner challenges one of the

district court's findings as plainly erroneous.

1 The Honorable Bryant Zane presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and affirm.

HRS § 707-717(1) provides that "[a] person commits the

offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree if the

person commits terroristic threatening other than as provided

in" HRS § 707-716 (2014).

HRS § 707-716 prohibits threatening a person on more

than one occasion, "threats made in a common scheme against

different persons[,]" threats against public servants and

emergency medical service providers, threats with a dangerous

instrument, and threats against a person who is protected by a

court order or police officer.

Terroristic threatening occurs when "the person

threatens, by word or conduct, to cause bodily injury to another

person . . . or to commit a felony . . . [w]ith the intent to

terrorize, or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing,

another person[.]" HRS § 707-715 (2014).

Here, the district court found that the complaining

witness (CW) "was a credible, reliable witness." The district

court stated that it viewed the "incident as a whole," as "one

incident." The district court explained:

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

And when [Tadiarca-Warner] gets out of his car, uh -- both times, he looks directly at [CW], he's addressing [CW], . . . that's the only person he's addressing. It's in a manner that, uh -- is conveying a message of, um -- threat. The thumb across the throat, which was understood by [CW], and by the court, as a threat to at the very least hurt the person.

. . . . That the other gestures did indicate that [Tadiarca-Warner] wanted to engage -- engage with [CW] . . . in[] . . . a fight.

Now, part of the compelling evidence for the court is that [Tadiarca-Warner] at the, uh -- first light, um -- moved, maneuvered his vehicle to the side, . . . taunted [CW], uh -- wanted, uh -- [CW] to pull even with him.

[CW] . . . declined.

But then, . . . [Tadiarca-Warner] maneuvered his vehicle behind [CW's] vehicle and continued to follow him for extended period of time. . . . [CW] did not take a direct[] . . . route to[] . . . the shopping center, . . . but [Tadiarca-Warner] continued to follow him. And[] . . . it was for an extended period of time.

. . . . And that [Tadiarca-Warner] continuously followed -- it's clear that [Tadiarca-Warner] was not trying to go anywhere else but to follow [CW].

And then we get to the part where [Tadiarca-Warner] blocks [CW], . . . gets out again, and . . . further engages with [CW] . . . confirming that he wanted to engage[] . . . with [CW] in a fight.

(Emphases added.)

In his sole point of error, Tadiarca-Warner contends

the "trial court plainly erred in finding, as 'compelling

evidence,' that '[he] at the, uh — first light, um — moved,

maneuvered his vehicle to the side, um — tsk — taunted [CW], uh

— wanted, uh — [CW] to pull even with him.'" (Formatting

altered.)

Tadiarca-Warner argues that "at no point did [CW]

state that [Tadiarca-Warner] indicated a desire for him to 'pull

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

even'." Tadiarca-Warner further argues that the court's finding

was "a substantive component of the court's reasoning and its

assessment of [Tadiarca-Warner]'s culpability."

CW testified that a car came by his right side "really

fast" and cut him off. CW then testified that Tadiarca-Warner

"was looking in his side rear mirror at [him], and then looking

in the rear view, and then he pull[ed] into that center lane"

and was "still eying [CW] up." (Emphases added.) CW explained

that Tadiarca-Warner got out of his car, approached, and took

"his thumb, put[] it against his throat, and d[id] one of these

things. Co -- crosse[d] it -- you know, thumb across the

throat." CW testified, "I[] just watch[ed] him going off,

talking, trying to egg me up -- egg me to move forward. Because

it's a red light. So he[] [was] trying to egg me to move

forward." (Emphasis added.)

Although CW did not use the words "pull even," he

testified that Tadiarca-Warner cut him off, looked in the rear-

view mirror, then moved his car to the center lane, and tried to

"egg [him] to move forward." Based on CW's testimony, the

district court's use of "pull even" does not rise to the level

of plain error. Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 52(b) ("Plain errors or defects affecting substantial

rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the

attention of the court.").

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

Importantly, the district court found CW credible, and

CW testified to Tadiarca-Warner's conduct, including exiting his

car at the traffic light, drawing his thumb across his throat,

entering his car, following CW to and around the shopping mall,

blocking CW's car with his car, exiting his car again, yelling,

and making more gestures indicating he wanted to fight.

As such, there was sufficient evidence to support

Tadiarca-Warner's conviction for Terroristic Threatening in the

Second Degree. State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai‘i 229, 244, 925 P.2d

797, 812 (1996) ("The testimony of one percipient witness can

provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction."). And

Tadiarca-Warner's substantial rights were not violated. See

HRPP Rule 52(b).

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

July 15, 2024 Judgment and Sentence.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 19, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge William H. Jameson, Jr. Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Loren J. Thomas, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.