*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 22-JUL-2025 10:59 AM Dkt. 27 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ERIK WILLIS, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
July 22, 2025
RECKTENWALD, C.J., McKENNA, EDDINS, GINOZA, AND DEVENS, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Erik Willis was convicted of attempted murder for the
sudden, unprovoked stabbing of the complainant while she was
sunbathing on a beach. The main issue at trial was whether
Willis was the person who committed the stabbing. Willis *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
appealed, arguing inter alia that the Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney (DPA) committed prosecutorial misconduct by misstating
evidence before the jury in closing. The Intermediate Court of
Appeals (ICA) vacated Willis’s conviction and remanded the case
for a new trial. The ICA agreed with Willis that the DPA’s
statements constituted prosecutorial misconduct and, measuring
the nature of the misconduct against the weight of the evidence,
concluded that there was a reasonable possibility that the DPA’s
statements contributed to Willis’s conviction.
The State now asks this court to reverse the ICA and
affirm Willis’s conviction. The State argues that the DPA’s
arguments were based on reasonable inferences from the evidence
presented. Even if the statements were improper, the State
contends that they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Put
otherwise, the State argues that, taken in the context in which
they were presented, there is no reasonable possibility that the
DPA’s statements could have contributed to Willis’s conviction.
We agree with the State that the DPA’s remarks in
closing did not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.
The DPA’s challenged comments, viewed in context, were based
upon reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial.
We further hold that there is no reasonable possibility that
these comments from the DPA alone might have affected the
trial’s outcome.
2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Accordingly, we vacate the ICA’s July 1, 2024 Judgment
on Appeal and affirm the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s
(circuit court) July 20, 2022 Amended Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence for Attempted Murder in the Second Degree.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On July 8, 2020, 17-year-old M.K. was sunbathing alone
on Kahala Beach when an unknown assailant pinned her down from
behind, covered her mouth, and stabbed her in the neck
repeatedly. She sustained life-threatening injuries as a result
of the incident, but fortunately survived.
In the days following the attack, the Honolulu Police
Department (HPD) recovered surveillance video footage from a
residence at 4671 Kahala Avenue. The footage, recorded from
1:26 p.m. to 1:27 p.m. on July 8, 2020, depicted a person of
interest with dark hair, a white t-shirt, tan pants, and black
shoes with white markings walking on an access path towards
Kahala Beach in proximity to where M.K. was attacked. M.K.
would later identify the person depicted in the video as her
assailant.
In addition to the footage from 4671 Kahala Avenue,
HPD also recovered footage appearing to depict the same person
of interest arriving by city bus to the Kahala neighborhood
shortly before M.K.’s attack on the afternoon of July 8, 2020.
3 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
HPD identified the person in the bus footage as Defendant Erik
Willis.
On July 11, 2020, HPD conducted a warrantless arrest
of Willis at his residence. Officers entered the residence
without permission, detained Willis, and recovered physical
evidence, including a pair of black shoes and a white t-shirt.
On July 24, 2020, an O‘ahu Grand Jury indicted Willis
for the offense of attempted murder in the second degree under
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 705-500 (2014), 707-701.5
(Supp. 2018), and 706-656 (2014).
B. Circuit Court Proceedings 1
1. Pretrial motions and prior appeal
On November 16, 2020, Willis filed a motion to dismiss
the indictment, a motion to suppress M.K.’s identification of
Willis as her assailant, and a motion to suppress evidence and
statements obtained pursuant to the warrantless entry and
search. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss the
indictment and the motion to suppress identification, but
granted the motion to suppress the evidence and statements
obtained at the time of Willis’s arrest. The State appealed and
this court affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing
evidence in State v. Willis (Willis I), 150 Hawai‘i 235, 500 P.3d
1 The Honorable Kevin A. Souza presided over the circuit court proceedings.
4 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
420 (2021), holding that “[b]ecause the police entered Willis’s
home without exigent circumstances, permission, or a warrant,
the circuit court correctly suppressed the evidence and
precluded its use at trial.” Id. at 241, 500 P.3d at 426. We
remanded the case for trial. Id.
2. Trial
The physical evidence recovered from Willis’s
residence having been suppressed, much of the State’s case
against Willis at trial was based on circumstantial evidence in
the form of witness testimony and surveillance video that tied
Willis to the scene of the attack. Among the witnesses called
by the State were: Corporal Matthew Motas, the HPD officer who
initially identified Willis from the bus surveillance footage;
Taylor Gray, who was on the beach near M.K. at the time of the
incident; Edward Leal, a landscaper who was working on a
property at 4635 Kahala Avenue near the site of the stabbing;
and M.K. herself. For its part, the defense put on no evidence
and called no witnesses. Willis himself did not testify.
a. The State’s case against Willis
The State called Corporal Motas, who had previously
mentored Erik Willis for a period between September 2015 and
January 2016. By coincidence, Corporal Motas had also assisted
in the investigation of M.K.’s stabbing. Motas identified
Willis in State’s Exhibit 2, surveillance footage taken from the
5 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
city bus on July 8, 2020. When asked how he was able to
identify Willis in the videos, Motas answered, “[f]acial
features, body structure, hair,” adding, “Defendant has a very
prominent brow.”
The DPA questioned Corporal Motas about each of the
surveillance videos the State entered into evidence. In
addition to the videos taken from the city bus, which showed
Willis travelling from Niu Valley to Kahala and back, Corporal
Motas also identified Willis in State’s Exhibits 1 and 10, two
surveillance videos taken from a private residence at the
intersection of Halemaumau Street and Haleola Street, which
Motas recognized to be near Willis’s residence. When viewing
those videos, recorded in the early afternoon on July 8, 2020,
Corporal Motas described Willis as wearing “[a] white shirt,
khaki pants, black shoes with white markings on the sides, and a
blue medical mask.” In a third video submitted as State’s
Exhibit 6, recorded from the same Niu Valley residence later
that day at 4:35 p.m., Corporal Motas observed that Willis was
wearing the same clothing but that Willis’s white shirt now
appeared to have a large stain “across the whole front of it.”
Corporal Motas also identified Willis in State’s
Exhibit 5, surveillance video taken from 948 Pueo Street in
Kahala, near where Willis boarded the city bus to return to Niu
Valley. The 948 Pueo Street video, recorded on July 8, 2020
6 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
from 3:56 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., showed a man who Motas identified
as Willis stepping off the street to linger in a driveway for
several minutes before moving on. When asked to describe
Willis’s clothing in the Pueo Street video, Corporal Motas
answered, “[k]haki pants, the black shoes with the white
markings, and a dirty white shirt, blue medical mask.”
The State also introduced surveillance video marked as
State’s Exhibit 3, showing a person of interest walking down the
beach access adjacent to 4671 Kahala Avenue, and another,
State’s Exhibit 4, showing a shirtless man running across an
empty lot to a construction sink next to 4635 Kahala Avenue,
down the beach from where M.K. was attacked. Corporal Motas was
not able to identify the individual depicted in either video.
The State also called Taylor Gray. Gray testified
that, sometime after 1:00 p.m. on the afternoon of July 8, 2020,
she was laying on Kahala Beach when she noticed what she thought
was a couple being intimate behind a bush to her left. At some
point, a man popped up from behind the bush. Gray described him
as “a hapa-looking man with fluffy, dark hair . . . wearing a
blue disposable mask and a white [t]-shirt with what looked like
something . . . on the center of his shirt.” Gray briefly
looked down and when she looked again the man was running down
the beach in the ‘Ewa direction. As the man ran away, Gray noted
that he was wearing “long pants.”
7 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Gray then testified that, after the man ran off, a
girl got up from the area of the beach where the man had just
been. The girl was M.K. M.K. then approached Gray for help.
Gray testified that M.K. was “holding the side of her neck” as
she approached, and “pointing down the beach to where the man
ran.” Gray then ran in the opposite direction to get help from
a group of women up the beach. She returned with one of the
women who helped her tend to M.K. Gray then called 911. It was
1:47 p.m.
On the second day of trial, the State called Edward
Leal. Leal is a landscaper who, on July 8, 2020, was working at
4635 Kahala Avenue, a beachfront residence just a few lots ‘Ewa
of where M.K. was attacked. Leal testified through an
interpreter that, at some time between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.,
he saw a “white guy” with wavy hair wearing light-colored pants
and no shirt run through the vacant lot next to 4635 Kahala
Avenue. Leal saw the man stop to wash off at a construction
sink before running off the lot. When asked what the man was
washing at the sink, Leal answered, “He was washing his arms,
here, and also wash his face a little.” Leal did not identify
the man and at no point in his testimony did he mention seeing
blood.
The DPA then played the video from 4635 Kahala Avenue.
The clip, recorded at 1:46 p.m. on July 8, 2020, showed a man
8 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
with dark hair, no shirt, tan pants, and dark shoes run onto the
lot adjacent to 4635 Kahala Avenue from the direction of the
beach. The man in the video runs to the sink, appears to wash
himself off, and then runs off of the lot. Leal confirmed that
the man in the video was the same person he had described in his
testimony.
The State later called M.K. to the stand, where she
recounted the stabbing attack in detail. M.K. testified that
she arrived at Kahala Beach via access 133C, which is adjacent
to 4671 Kahala Avenue, sometime around 1:20 p.m. on July 8,
2020. After she had picked a spot to lay out her pareo, M.K.
noticed a man walking toward her on the beach. The man walked
past her and sat down on the beach nearby, “about two car
lengths away.” She described the man as having brown, poofy
hair and wearing a white t-shirt, light-colored jeans, and a
blue clinical mask. She also noted his eyes and “his bushy
eyebrows.”
Some five minutes after the man in the white t-shirt
had walked past her, M.K. laid down on the beach on her stomach.
Sometime after she laid down, she felt a hand cover her mouth
and a weight on her back. Then, something sharp stabbing into
her neck. Unable to speak or move her body, M.K. attempted to
block the attack with her hands as she was stabbed repeatedly.
M.K. estimated that she was stabbed fifteen times before the
9 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
attack relented and she felt the weight lift off her back. M.K.
further testified that, as soon as she was able to move, she
turned to look in the ‘Ewa direction and saw the man in the white
shirt running away. She saw no one else on that stretch of the
beach.
M.K. confirmed that, in the days after her attack, she
had identified the man depicted in the surveillance video taken
from 4671 Kahala Avenue as her assailant. M.K. then identified
Willis in the courtroom as her assailant. On cross, M.K.
confirmed that she had previously identified Willis at a
pretrial hearing on January 28, 2021.
b. Defense motions for judgment of acquittal
At the conclusion of the State’s case in chief, the
defense moved for judgment of acquittal, contending that “in
this case there is reasonable doubt as a matter of law.” The
circuit court denied the motion, finding that “a reasonable mind
could indeed conclude defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Willis declined to testify and the defense rested its
case without presenting any evidence. After the jury was
dismissed, the defense renewed its motion for judgment of
acquittal, which the circuit court denied.
c. Closing arguments
The DPA’s closing argument began with a summary
description that focused on the brutality of the alleged crime.
10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
He then began reviewing each of the State’s exhibits and
recounting witness testimony to present the State’s narrative as
to what occurred on July 8, 2020. The DPA used video evidence
to argue that Willis took the bus from his home in Niu Valley to
Kahala Beach, where he attacked M.K., cleaned up at the sink in
the nearby vacant lot, and disappeared for roughly two hours
before resurfacing in soiled clothing and taking the bus back
home.
The DPA made the following statements in the course of
his argument:
Taylor Gray said when she saw the man who was on [M.K.]’s back get up, she took a look at him, she saw him, saw part of him, but she noticed that there was something on his white shirt. She didn’t explain what it was, but there was something on the white shirt. But up to this point, there’s been nothing on the defendant’s white shirt. So what could it be? Blood? There was plenty of blood. Sand? It’s on a beach. We don’t know.
But if you’re the defendant, what do you do if you have blood on your shirt? What do you do if you have blood on your hands?
At this time, the DPA showed State’s Exhibit 4, the
video footage of the person of interest washing their hands in
the vacant lot next to 4635 Kahala Avenue. The DPA narrated to
the jury as the footage played:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is State’s Exhibit 4. And the time is 1:46:22. First of all, before we go, notice defendant is here. No shirt because it’s soiled. Pants, light colored pants. Shoes, looks like some sort of marking on the side of it.
Okay. Please run it to 1:46:43 and then stop it. Okay. Stop.
11 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Notice something in his left hand. Looks white. Most likely it’s his shirt.
Go to [1:46:]45 please.
You notice he’s turning, leaving the sink, and he’s got something behind his back curled up. It’s white. State submits that’s his shirt. So we don’t know whether he washed the shirt at the sink, but we know from Edward Leal that he washed his hands and his face because he had blood on them.
(Emphases added.)
No witness had identified the person depicted in
State’s Exhibit 4 as the Defendant, Erik Willis. Further,
Edward Leal had not testified to seeing blood on the man washing
at the sink.
Shortly thereafter, the DPA replayed State’s Exhibit
6, the video showing Willis walking back toward his residence
after returning to Niu Valley, and argued the following:
Now we’re going to show you the surveillance video again from 5605 Haleola Street at 4:35 p.m.
Now, the defendant, as we previously stated, had gotten off the bus at around 4:26 p.m.
So just play it.
So watch carefully when the defendant walks by.
Stop.
Shirt is soiled. So what happened was that after the defendant arrived to the beach with a clean white T-shirt, after he stabbed [M.K.], he got blood on it, possibly sand. Tried to wash it out, and disappeared for two hours.
So what to do? The defendant is on the beach. He’s targeted [M.K.] He’s on an isolated portion of the beach. He stabs her repeatedly. Then he stops and he gets up and he looks and he sees that Taylor Gray is looking at him.
So what does he do? He runs. He runs down the beach. He runs up the vacant lot. He has to clean up. You run away, you clean up, you hide and wait. So he ran
12 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
away, he cleaned up. Now he has to hide and wait. This is the two-hour gap that we’re talking about. So two hours.
(Emphasis added.)
The DPA then concluded the State’s closing argument,
stating:
We’re not asking the jury to fill in blanks, ladies and gentlemen. You are permitted to use circumstantial evidence to draw reasonable inferences. All the evidence before you point to the defendant as the one who stabbed [M.K.] attempting to cause her death on the beach in Kahala on July 8, 2020.
In his closing, defense counsel commented on the
absence of direct evidence. No witness saw the attack take
place. HPD’s grid search of the area turned up no suspect and
no weapon was ever recovered. The State introduced no evidence
of motive. Further, the lead detective on the case, Detective
Lacuata, was not called to testify.
Defense counsel directly addressed the DPA’s comments
as to Edward Leal’s testimony:
Then there’s Edward Leal. Edward Leal was a landscaper who was working at 4635 Kahala Avenue. He says he saw a hapa guy with curly hair up at that white sink in the vacant lot adjoining the property. Edward Leal did not identify the defendant in court as the individual he saw standing at the white sink. He did not. The prosecutor never asked him that.
Don’t you think, ladies and gentlemen, if Edward Leal could say the man at the white sink who the prosecution says was washing blood off his hands and his face and washing blood off his white T-shirt – don’t you think if Edward Leal could say that guy was the defendant, the prosecutor would have asked him that? Nothing. Nothing from Edward Leal establishing that the guy at the white sink was the defendant.
And ladies and gentlemen, ask yourself this. Where is the white sink? The white sink was sitting in a vacant lot. The police could very easily have taken that sink and
13 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
had it analyzed for blood, for fingerprints, for any evidence to establish that Erik Willis was the man standing at the white sink washing blood off his hands and his face and washing the blood out of that white T-shirt. Did the State present to you a single piece of evidence in this courtroom about that white sink? They produced nothing. Nothing.
Defense counsel similarly commented on the DPA’s
argument that Willis’s shirt was stained with blood:
And then [the DPA] argues to you, well, if you watch the video, when Erik Willis goes to the beach, his T-shirt is white, and when he comes back, the T-shirt is soiled.
Did the State present any evidence to you in this courtroom that the stains on his shirt were blood stains as they have argued to you[?]
Finally, defense counsel called the State’s timeline
into question, emphasizing that Corporal Motas had been unable
to identify Willis as the individual depicted in State’s
Exhibits 3 and 4:
So to continue, ladies and gentlemen, the State offers you more surveillance video. State’s Exhibit 4, the video from 4635 Kahala Avenue; and State’s Exhibit 3, the surveillance video from 4671 Kahala Avenue, the beach access. And the State attempts to create this time line for you of what happened on July 8th, 2020.
The problem is, ladies and gentlemen, when Corporal Motas testified at trial before you in this courtroom, he told you in no uncertain terms that he could not identify the individual in State’s Exhibit 4, the surveillance video from 4635 Kahala Avenue; and State’s Exhibit 3, the surveillance video from the beach access at 4671 Kahala Avenue. He testified in no uncertain terms that he could not identify that person as the defendant, Erik Willis.
d. The verdict
The jury found Willis guilty as charged of attempted
murder in the second degree. Willis then filed a motion for new
trial based on sufficiency of the evidence and prosecutorial
14 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
misconduct, which the circuit court denied. On July 20, 2022,
the circuit court entered its Amended Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence. Willis timely appealed.
C. Appellate Proceedings
1. ICA Proceedings
On appeal to the ICA, Willis argued that the DPA
“committed multiple, continuing, and egregious acts of
misconduct throughout the course of the trial and especially
during his closing arguments that violated Mr. Willis’s
constitutional right to a fair trial.” 2 In its answering brief,
the State rebuffed Willis’s arguments of misconduct and asked
the ICA to affirm his conviction and sentence.
The ICA agreed with Willis that the DPA committed
prosecutorial misconduct. Its analysis focused on two
statements from the DPA’s closing argument. The ICA held
2 Willis raised five points of error before the ICA: (1) the circuit court “erred in denying [Willis’s] Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for lack of probable cause”; (2) the circuit court “erred in denying [Willis’s] Motion to Suppress Identification of the Defendant”; (3) “[t]he prosecutor committed multiple, continuing, and egregious acts of misconduct throughout the course of the trial and especially during his closing arguments that violated [Willis’s] constitutional right to a fair trial”; (4) the circuit court “erred in denying [Willis’s] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal”; and (5) the circuit court “abused its discretion in denying [Willis’s] Motion for New Trial based on sufficiency of the evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.” The ICA held that the circuit court did not err in denying Willis’s motion to dismiss the indictment, motion to suppress identification, and motion for judgment of acquittal. State v. Willis (Willis II), 154 Hawai‘i 160, 163, 548 P.3d 714, 717 (App. 2024). Willis did not file a certiorari application challenging these holdings and thus they are not addressed in this opinion. As to the denial of Willis’s motion for a new trial, the ICA held that “the Circuit Court erred in denying Willis’s motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct.” Id. at 173, 548 P.3d at 727.
15 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
that the [DPA] committed prosecutorial misconduct during his closing argument, when he argued to the jury that Willis was depicted in a surveillance video after the attack leaving a work sink, and “we know from [witness] Edward Leal [(Leal)] that [Willis] washed his hands and his face because he had blood on them.” The DPA’s statement referred to evidence of blood that was not in the record and misrepresented the testimony of the identified witness. Another statement by the DPA minutes later – that “after he stabbed [M.K.], [Willis] got blood on [his t-shirt]” – also introduced new evidence of blood in closing argument and amounted to misconduct. Based on the serious nature of the DPA’s conduct, the lack of a curative instruction, and the heavy dependence of the conviction on M.K.’s credibility, we conclude that the DPA’s improper statements about blood on Willis and his shirt were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction must therefore be vacated. Relatedly, we hold that the Circuit Court erred in denying Willis’s motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct in introducing this new blood evidence in closing argument.
State v. Willis (Willis II), 154 Hawai‘i 160, 163, 548 P.3d 714,
717 (App. 2024) (footnotes omitted, brackets in original).
Consistent with its holding, the ICA vacated the
circuit court’s Amended Judgment of Conviction and Sentence and
remanded the case for a new trial.
2. Supreme Court Proceedings
The State now asks this court to reverse the ICA’s
opinion and judgment on appeal.
The ICA vacated Willis’s conviction on the basis that
the DPA misstated the evidence during closing arguments when he
said Edward Leal had testified that Willis “washed his hands and
his face because he had blood on them.” The State argues that
the “ICA misconstrued the meaning of the deputy prosecutor’s
words,” noting that “the written transcript of the closing
16 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
argument does not accurately represent the prosody of the deputy
prosecutor’s words.” The State contends that the audio
recording of the closing argument makes clear that the DPA was
merely arguing that there was blood on Willis’s t-shirt, rather
than stating that as a fact.
The State also contends that “the context of the
deputy prosecutor’s words make it clear” that the prosecutor was
arguing that Willis had blood on his t-shirt based on reasonable
inferences from the surveillance video footage and “the
extremely close proximity of the person in the video washing his
hands and face to where the stabbing had taken place moments
before.” The State emphasizes that the DPA was merely drawing a
reasonable inference based on the circumstantial evidence
presented at trial. Further, the State argues, “it is
implausible that the jury would have believed that Leal
testified that Willis had blood on his face and hands simply
because the deputy prosecutor had said it,” given that Leal did
not so testify, and the jury’s ability to review the video
footage and observe that they could not see blood on Willis or
his t-shirt.
Finally, the State argues that even if the DPA
mischaracterized Leal’s testimony, it was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt because the key evidence in the case was the
17 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
video surveillance footage, which clearly showed Willis near the
scene of the crime.
Willis asks this court to affirm the ICA’s judgment
vacating his conviction. He argues that the ICA did not err in
concluding that the DPA committed misconduct during his closing
argument. Willis contends that “[w]hether the Deputy Prosecutor
paused before the word ‘because’ or not does not make his
statements in closing any less misleading, less improper, or
less prejudicial.” Because no witness identified Willis as the
individual at the sink, “any argument that it was Erik Willis at
the white sink or that he was washing blood off his person or
his clothing would be improper since it could not be reasonably
inferred from the evidence.”
Willis emphasizes that HPD did not seize or analyze
the white sink at any point, nor was there any physical evidence
that would have linked Willis, or any other individual, to the
sink. Thus, he contends that the DPA should not have
“rhetorically asked the jury to speculate about the identity of
the person at the sink and the presence of blood,” and that such
statements were prosecutorial misconduct that warranted a
vacatur of Willis’s conviction.
Finally, Willis stresses that the impact of the DPA’s
improper comments was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
He argues that the State’s evidence was not overwhelming because
18 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the State’s case was predicated entirely on M.K.’s
identification of Willis as her assailant. 3
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Whenever a defendant alleges prosecutorial
misconduct, this court must first decide: (1) whether the
conduct was improper;” and “(2) if the conduct was improper,
whether the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Udo, 145 Hawai‘i 519, 534-35, 454 P.3d 460, 475-76
(2019) (citing State v. Maluia, 107 Hawai‘i 20, 25-26, 108 P.3d
974, 979-80 (2005)). “Prosecutorial misconduct is not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt if ‘there is a reasonable possibility
that the misconduct complained of might have contributed to the
conviction.’” Id. at 535, 454 P.3d at 476 (quoting State v.
Wakisaka, 102 Hawai‘i 504, 513, 78 P.3d 317, 326 (2003)).
Further, “[i]f defense counsel does not object at
trial to prosecutorial misconduct, this court may nevertheless
recognize such misconduct if plainly erroneous.” State v.
Austin, 143 Hawai‘i 18, 28, 422 P.3d 18, 28 (2018) (quoting
Wakisaka, 102 Hawai‘i at 513, 78 P.3d at 326). “Because
prosecutorial misconduct impacts the fundamental right to a fair
3 Willis further requests this court to address “additional issues of prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency of the evidence, and suppression of the eyewitness identification.” These issues were not raised in any application for writ of certiorari, are in any event without merit and, therefore, are not discussed herein.
19 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
trial, there is no difference between the plain error and
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standards of review.” State
v. Hirata, 152 Hawai‘i 27, 31, 520 P.3d 225, 229 (2022) (citing
State v. Riveira, 149 Hawai‘i 427, 431 n.10, 494 P.3d 1160, 1164
n.10 (2021)).
IV. DISCUSSION
This court has defined prosecutorial misconduct as “a
legal term of art that refers to any improper action committed
by a prosecutor, however harmless or unintentional.” Udo, 145
Hawai‘i at 534, 454 P.3d at 475 (citing Maluia, 107 Hawai‘i at
25, 108 P.3d at 979). “The first factor of the prosecutorial
misconduct analysis is determining whether the DPA’s conduct was
improper.” Id. at 535, 454 P.3d at 476. This determination
requires the court to consider “the nature of the challenged
conduct in relation to our criminal justice system generally and
the special role of the prosecutor specifically.” State v.
Underwood, 142 Hawai‘i 317, 325, 418 P.3d 658, 666 (2018)
(citation omitted). Prosecuting attorneys have “a duty to seek
justice, to play fair and square.” Hirata, 152 Hawai‘i at 33,
520 P.3d at 231. And given the important role that prosecuting
attorneys play in our criminal justice system, this court
acknowledges that “a prosecutor’s ‘improper suggestions,
insinuations, and especially assertions of personal knowledge
20 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they
should properly carry none.’” State v. Clark, 83 Hawai‘i 289,
304, 926 P.2d 194, 209 (1996) (quoting State v. Marsh, 68 Haw.
659, 661, 728 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1986)).
“Prosecutors are also forbidden from introducing new
information or evidence in closing argument.” Hirata, 152
Hawai‘i at 33, 520 P.3d at 231. However, this restriction does
not prohibit prosecuting attorneys from crafting arguments based
on the evidence in the record. “[I]t is well-established that
prosecutors are afforded wide latitude in closing to discuss the
evidence, and may ‘state, discuss, and comment on the evidence
as well as to draw all reasonable inferences from the
evidence.’” Udo, 145 Hawai‘i at 536, 454 P.3d at 477 (quoting
Clark, 83 Hawai‘i at 304, 926 P.2d at 209). Of course, “this
latitude is not without limit. ‘[T]he scope of [the
prosecutor’s] argument must be consistent with the evidence and
marked by the fairness that should categorize all of the
prosecutor’s conduct.’” State v. Pasene, 144 Hawai‘i 339, 367,
439 P.3d 864, 892 (2019) (quoting State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai‘i 405,
413, 984 P.2d 1231, 1239 (1999) (brackets in original)). A
prosecutor’s comments must also be legitimate, that is, they
must “draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” State v.
Mainaaupo, 117 Hawai‘i 235, 253, 178 P.3d 1, 19 (2008). An
21 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
inference is reasonable when “the evidence bears a logical and
proximate connection to the point the prosecutor wishes to
prove.” State v. Basham, 132 Hawai‘i 97, 112, 319 P.3d 1105,
1120 (2014) (quoting United States v. Waldemer, 50 F.3d 1379,
1384 (7th Cir. 1995).
In the present case, the DPA’s statements regarding
the blood on Willis’s hands and shirt were based on reasonable
inferences drawn from the significant circumstantial evidence
put on at trial and, thus, did not amount to prosecutorial
misconduct.
The DPA began his closing argument with a statement to
the jury regarding circumstantial evidence and its role in the
State’s case against Willis:
Circumstantial evidence, which is set forth in your jury instructions . . . permits a reasonable inference to be drawn as to the existence of another fact. . . .
So there’s two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial. And as we have stated, there’s significant circumstantial evidence which points to the defendant.
So let’s start looking at some of that. And we’re going to begin with a time line.
The DPA then focused on the surveillance videos and
related witness testimony to construct a timeline that put
Willis near the scene of the stabbing at the time it occurred on
July 8, 2020. Corporal Motas positively identified Willis in
five separate surveillance videos entered into evidence at
trial. These videos showed Willis (1) leaving Niu Valley; (2)
22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
taking the bus to Kahala and exiting at a stop near 4671 Kahala
Avenue at 1:25 p.m.; (3) walking into a driveway at 948 Pueo
Street in Kahala at 3:56 p.m., roughly two hours after the
stabbing occurred; (4) boarding the bus at 948 Pueo Street and
traveling back to the bus stop at the intersection of
Kalaniana‘ole Highway and West Halemaumau Street in Niu Valley;
and (5) walking toward his Niu Valley residence. 4
In each of the videos in which Corporal Motas
identified Willis, Willis was wearing the same clothing: white
t-shirt, blue clinical mask, light-colored pants, and black
shoes. Willis’s clothing and physical appearance in this
footage match that of the unidentified person of interest in the
surveillance footage showing that person approaching the beach
access at 4671 Kahala Avenue at 1:26 p.m., just one minute after
Willis departed the bus across the street from that location.
Willis’s clothing and physical appearance in the videos in which
he was identified also match the descriptions of M.K.’s
assailant given by M.K. and Taylor Gray. Given the proximity in
space and time, as well as the matching physical descriptions of
the defendant, the DPA drew a logical inference when he argued
4 The defense conceded that the individual seen in surveillance video “riding the bus from Niu Valley to Kahala and then from Kahala back to Niu Valley,” and the individual “walking down the sidewalk in Niu Valley,” was Willis.
23 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
that Willis was the individual depicted in the surveillance
video taken from 4671 Kahala Avenue.
The DPA then noted the testimony from M.K. and Gray,
who both testified that, after stabbing M.K. on the beach, the
attacker ran away in the ‘Ewa direction toward 4635 Kahala
Avenue. According to Gray, this occurred sometime shortly
before 1:47 p.m., when Gray made the 911 call to report the
attack on M.K. At 1:46 p.m., the surveillance footage from 4635
Kahala Avenue shows a shirtless person matching Willis’s
description run onto the adjacent vacant lot from the direction
of the beach. That person then appears to wash themselves off
at a white sink. Edward Leal, who was working that day at 4635
Kahala Avenue and is visible in the video, testified that he saw
someone in the lot washing his arms and face in a white sink
around that same time.
Recounting Leal’s testimony together with the video
evidence in closing, the DPA argued:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is State’s Exhibit 4. And the time is 1:46:22. First of all, before we go, notice defendant is here. No shirt because it’s soiled. Pants, light colored pants. Shoes, looks like some sort of marking on the side of it.
. . . .
24 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
You notice he’s turning, leaving the sink, and he’s got something behind his back curled up. It’s white. State submits that’s his shirt. So we don’t know whether he washed the shirt at the sink, but we know from Edward Leal that he washed his hands and his face because he had blood on them.
Again, no witness had identified Willis as the
individual portrayed in State’s Exhibit 4. 5 However, given the
sequence of events established by the evidence, and read in
context of the entire closing, there was a logical basis for the
DPA to infer that the person seen washing in the sink in the
surveillance video, and the person Edward Leal saw, was Willis.
As such, the DPA made a legitimate argument when he stated, “So
5 Defense counsel emphasized in closing that Corporal Motas was unable to identify Willis in the videos introduced as State’s Exhibits 3 and 4. In doing so, the defense also explained why it would be particularly difficult for anyone to make a positive identification from those videos:
If anybody was familiar with the defendant’s appearance, it was Corporal Motas. And he told you in no uncertain terms that he could not identify the person in State’s Exhibit 3 and State’s Exhibit 4 as Erik Willis.
And to his credit, ladies and gentlemen, he was telling you the truth. Look at the videos. The video from 4635 Kahala Avenue is taken from a camera on a pole that Sergeant Matsuo told you was 15 feet in the air pointed at Kahala Avenue, a significant distance from the white sink. Look at the video. You cannot make an identification of the person walking up to the white sink from that video. The camera’s too far away.
And you look at State’s Exhibit 3, the video from 4671 Kahala Avenue beach access. The resolution on that video is terrible. And it lasts for ten seconds. Not even ten seconds. An individual walks in front of the camera. You can’t even see the individual’s face.
So when Corporal Motas tells you, I can’t identify the person in that video, he’s right. Nobody can.
25 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
we don’t know whether he washed the shirt at the sink, but we
know from Edward Leal that he washed his hands and his face[.]”
The ICA interpreted the remainder of the DPA’s
comment, “because he had blood on them,” as a literal statement
of fact which “referred to evidence of blood on Willis that was
not in the record and, indeed, misrepresented evidence that was
in the record.” Willis II, 154 Hawai‘i at 171, 548 P.3d at 725.
However, when the DPA’s statement is properly read in context of
the DPA’s entire closing argument and the trial record as a
whole, it becomes clear that the DPA was making an argument
based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. See State v.
Bruce, 141 Hawai‘i 397, 407, 411 P.3d 300, 309 (2017) (holding
that the prosecutor’s challenged comments considered in context
were “properly viewed as a part of the State’s argument”); State
v. Marsh, 68 Haw. 659, 661, 728 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1986) (weighing
the prosecutor’s challenged comments in context of the entire
trial record).
The audio recording of the closing arguments provides
further context for the DPA’s statement. As the State argues,
the recording “clearly reflects a significant pause before the
word ‘because.’” Review of the audio recording supports the
State’s position that to those in the courtroom the DPA’s
26 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
statement was presented as “we know from Edward Leal that he
washed his hands and his face . . . because he had blood on
them.” While the DPA’s statement could have been more clearly
worded, it was not likely to be interpreted in the courtroom as
a misstatement of the evidence. Rather, the context clearly
signaled that the DPA was arguing an inference regarding the
presence of blood. The jury had heard Leal’s testimony and had
seen the video evidence for themselves. Jurors have the common-
sense ability to distinguish between an inartful choice of words
and a blatant misrepresentation of the record.
Furthermore, it was within the wide latitude afforded
to prosecutors for the DPA to comment on the soiled condition of
Willis’s shirt. Video evidence shows Willis with a clean white
t-shirt earlier in the afternoon, from the time he left Niu
Valley until he departed the city bus in Kahala. Later video
shows Willis in a soiled t-shirt when he reappears in the hours
after M.K.’s stabbing. Taylor Gray testified that the man she
saw running from the beach had something on the center of his
white shirt. At the time of closing, the jury had seen these
videos, M.K. and Gray had recounted the circumstances of the
stabbing, and M.K. had identified Willis as her attacker in the
courtroom. In that context, the DPA was making a fair comment
27 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
on the evidence, and not presenting wholly new evidence, when he
made the following statement:
Shirt is soiled. So what happened was that after the defendant arrived to the beach with a clean white T-shirt, after he stabbed [M.K.], he got blood on it, possibly sand. Tried to wash it out, and disappeared for two hours.
So what to do? The defendant is on the beach. He’s targeted [M.K.] He’s on an isolated portion of the beach. He stabs her repeatedly. Then he stops and he gets up and he looks and he sees that Taylor Gray is looking at him.
So what does he do? He runs. He runs down the beach. He runs up the vacant lot. He has to clean up. You run away, you clean up, you hide and wait. So he ran away, he cleaned up. Now he has to hide and wait.
This characterization of the DPA’s statements is
further supported by Willis’s failure to immediately object at
trial. Willis raised objections at several points throughout
the closing argument, but did not object in response to either
of the DPA’s statements that the ICA later identified as
prosecutorial misconduct. Failure to object does not prohibit a
defendant from raising prosecutorial misconduct as an issue on
appeal, as Willis has here. It does, however, tend to suggest
that those in the courtroom at the time of closing did not
interpret the DPA’s statements as a mischaracterization of the
evidence. Moreover, to the extent there had been any confusion
as to the nature of the DPA’s statements, Willis’s response to
28 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the challenged statements in closing clarified the state of the
evidence:
Don’t you think, ladies and gentlemen, if Edward Leal could say the man at the white sink who the prosecution says was washing blood off his hands and his face and washing blood off his white T-shirt – don’t you think if Edward Leal could say that guy was the defendant, the prosecutor would have asked him that? Nothing. Nothing from Edward Leal establishing that the guy at the white sink was the defendant.
And ladies and gentlemen, ask yourself this. Where is the white sink? The white sink was sitting in a vacant lot. The police could very easily have taken that sink and had it analyzed for blood, for fingerprints, for any evidence to establish that Erik Willis was the man standing at the white sink washing blood off his hands and his face and washing the blood out of that white T-shirt. Did the State present to you a single piece of evidence in this courtroom about that white sink? They produced nothing. Nothing.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the DPA’s
challenged statements, which were based on reasonable inferences
from the evidence, were not improper. Further, because the
DPA’s actions were not improper, we need not determine whether
any alleged misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 6
6 Although it is not necessary to our holding, we note that we would also depart from the ICA’s harmless error analysis, and, in particular, its characterization of the evidence here. The ICA determined that the evidence against Willis was “not overwhelming,” and that the State’s case “depended heavily on the credibility of M.K.” Respectfully, we disagree.
M.K.’s identification of Willis, though undeniably important, was only one piece of the State’s case against Willis. The State also presented considerable video evidence and witness testimony that support Willis’s conviction. Surveillance video placed Willis near the scene of the crime at the time in question. Taylor Gray and Edward Leal provided descriptions consistent with the surveillance video, M.K.’s testimony, and the State’s version of events. Thus, although the State lacked physical evidence against Willis, the circumstantial evidence was substantial and went beyond M.K.’s identification alone.
29 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Accordingly, we hold that the DPA did not commit prosecutorial
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we (1) vacate the ICA’s
July 1, 2024 Judgment on Appeal and (2) affirm the circuit
court’s July 20, 2022 Amended Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence.
Brian R. Vincent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Lawrence A. Sousie for petitioner /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Eric A. Seitz /s/ Todd W. Eddins (Della A. Belatti, Jonathan M.F. Loo, and /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Kevin A. Yolken, on the briefs) /s/ Vladimir P. Devens for respondent