Case Title: State v. Roman. J. Nakayama and J. Acoba concurring in the results only. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/22/2008 [pdf], 117 Haw. 52. Dissenting Opinion by J. Nakamura [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/04/0008 [pdf]. S.Ct. Order of Amendment, filed 09/17/2008 [pdf]. S.Ct. Second Order of Amendment, filed 09/22/2008 [pdf].

Citation: 119 Haw. 468

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBRAF
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

= 000

   

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee,

aS 000

ALFRED J. ROMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

aa

 

NO. 26359

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(FC-CR NO. 02-1-0350)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, AND DUFFY, J5.,

NAKAYAMA ‘AND ACOBA, JJ., CONCURRING SEPARATELY

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.

on June 4, 2008, this court accepted a timely
application for a writ of certiorari, filed on May 12, 2008 by
petitioner/defendant-appellant Alfred J. Roman, requesting this
court to review the February 11, 2008 judgnent of the
Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to its
January 22, 2008 summary disposition order. See State v, Roman,
No. 26359 (App. Jan. 22, 2008) (SD0) (Dissent by Foley, J.).

Therein, the ICA affirmed the Family Court of the Third Circuit's

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Decenber 26, 2003 judgment,’ entered subsequent to a bench trial,
convicting Roman of and sentencing him for abuse of family or
household members, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)
5 709-906(1) (Supp. 2005) .*

In his application, Roman argues, inter alia, that,
although the ICA correctly concluded that the family court
wrongly ruled that the parental discipline defense under HRS
§ 703-309(1) (1993), quoted infra, was inapplicable to the
instant case, it erred in ultimately affirming his conviction
Specifically, Roman contends that the ICA erred in holding that

the family court's erroneous refusal to apply the parental

 

cipline defense was harmless based on its conclusion that
respondent /plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai'i (the prosecution)
had adduced sufficient evidence at trial to negate the defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Oral argunent before the suprene
court was held on August 21, 2008.

As discu

 

fed more fully infra, we agree with the ICA
that the family court erred in ruling that the parental,
@iscipline defense was inapplicable, but hold that the ICA erred
im concluding that the family court’s erroneous ruling was

harmless. Consequently, we vacate the ICA's February 11, 2008

‘The Honorable George S. Yuda pret
proceedings

 

fed over the underlying

 

2 RS § 709-906(1) provides in relevant part that *{iJt shall be
unlawful for any person, eingly or in concert, to physically abuse a fanily or
household menber (-)*

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Judgment and reverse the family court's December 26, 2003
judgment.
1. BACKGROUND

A. The Bench Trial

on September 11, 2002, Roman was charged by way of
complaint with one count of abuse of family or household members,
in violation of HRS § 709-906, for “intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly [causing] physical [] abuse’ to the seventeen-year-old
son (hereinafter, Minor] of his girlfriend, Kim Powell
(hereinafter, Mother]. A one-day bench trial commenced on
November 7, 2003, The record indicates that Roman intended to
rely upon the justification of self-defense and the parental
Giscipline defense. The prosecution called several witnesses,
including Minor and three police officers who responded to the

incident -- Officers Kelly Matsumoto, Reginald Saludares, and

 

Dane Bolos.? Roman testified in his own defensi
1. Minor’s Testimony
Minor testified that, at the time of the incident on
May 12, 2002, he was seventeen years old and living with his
mother and his mother’s boyfriend (Roman) in Roman’s house
located in Hawaiian Acres, Puna District, on the island of
Hawai'i. May 12, 2002 was Mother's Day, and Roman had planned to

prepare tacos for Mother’s Day dinner. Minor related that, at

 

2 minor's broths
Sen inkxa note 4

was also called as the prosecution's witness.

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

approximately 5:30 p.m., Ronan instructed Minor to grate cheese
for the tacos; however, Minor remained “laying on a futon
watching television" and did not perform the requested task.
According to Minor, Roman ‘asked me again (to grate the cheese]
-- the second time he asked me, I went to go do it{:] he told me
1 was doing it wrong and to go lay down or sit down.” Minor went
and sat in the living room; Ronan then left his house to run an
errand. Forty-five minutes to an hour later, Ronan returned and
started yelling at Minor because he did not grate the cheese

correctly. With respect to the subsequent events, the colloquy

 

between the prosecution and Minor revealed the following:

Q. [By the Prosecution:) So after (Romen) cane into
the houge and he waa Yelling at you, what did he do next?
‘A. (By Minors] “tm, he, he, um, He ((Roman)] started
coming towards me then he started kicking mein my back.
He Kicked you in your back?

Yep:
Gan’ you tell me where on your back?
My lower back,
Left or right side, if you know?
T'gon't iow
And now many times did he kick you?
Coupe.
And what did he kick you with?
Bis leg.
Okay. What happened after that?
Then r got up and then he started yelling at me
‘re and he whacked ne couple tines

‘when you say he whacked you, what does that mean?
Be hit me with bis hand
Sas it an open hand?

‘don't remenber’

tere dia he nit you?
Say face.
S How say times?
SA couple... About two.

men you were kicked in the back, how did you feel?
A iieele sore.
What about when you were Ait in the face?

Sane.
ea

 

 

rorerorsrererel rerorererers

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Minor further testified that Mother tried to intervene, but was
struck by Roman. Thereafter, Roman called the police to report

the inci

 

t that he had hit Minor and Mother. Minor stated
that, after the incident, he went to stay with his father; while
at the father’s hone, his step-mother called the police to ‘make
a statement because [Minor] had a mark on (his] face.” When
asked to describe the mark on his face, Minor stated that it was
‘a lunp and was red.*‘ Minor also stated that, during the course
of that evening, Roman had consumed about a case of beer.

on cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Minor
regarding a written statement that he made to the police on the
night of the incident:

0. tay Det De) you renenber
filling out a written statement forthe police?

 

Av biy'minors} Yean.

Q. Do you renenber chat you told them he beat you for
no reason at all?

he I'don't remenber writing that

0. If T were to show you your written statement, would
it help'to refresh your memory On what you told the police?

2. Yeah.

{Defense Counsel:] Your Honor, :/@ like to show the
written statement of the complainant to --

(Q. Does that help you to renember what you told the
police?

A. Yeah,

O. Let ie ask you again, do you renenber telling the
police that he kicked you for no reason?

a Wo.

Q. You also told

*

 

 

 

police that he only hit you once,

Xo

4 As noted previously, Minor’s brother algo vestified on behalf of the
prosecution. He testified that, on May 12, 2002, he and his father went to
Dick up Minor after receiving a’call from ilinor.” He observed that *{e[here
as a small lump on one of (Minor’s] ... cheekbone."

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Q. 1 believe you told the police he choked you and he
hit you ==

‘Do you renenber you telling them he choked you?
A. Me’ police, yeah:

Minor reiterated that Ronan kicked hin twice. Defense counsel

 

then proceeded to

 

k Minor the following:

©. (By Defense Counsel:) Tan’t tt true that you go out
in the yard when you vere living at your Hone, and beat the
tees?

(The Prosecution:] Objection, your Honor, relevance.

‘THE COURT: Beat the what?

{Defense Counsel:] The trees in the yard, your Honor:
He would go out and beat then with a stick.

[the Prosecution:] Again, your Honor, object on
relevance

(Defense Counsel:] Your Honor, [indiscernible] state
of mind’

 

MB CouRT: Okay, we'll allow tt.

@, pia’ you ws
trees with a stick?
X. tee.
@: Ana'aia you beat those trees so mich that the trees
aiea?

 

14 to go out An the yard and beat the

 

set) to kill chickens?
Tine Prosecutions] Objection, your Honor, relevance,
Wnere is this going:

‘HE COURT: Yeah, T think we, we talked about this one
se Of self defense. Ie that what we're

 

{Defense Counsel:) Yes, your Honor,

‘THE COURT: we'll see, continue, you may continue.

Q. Did you Used to kit] chickens?

Al Yes:

Q, And aid you take a glue stick, a hot
a friend's arm to burn hin?

‘A. Yes, "cause he burnt me.

Q. In fact, haven't you in the past been taken for
counseling on many occasions by your mother's boyfriend, AL
Roman, because of your violent tendencies and your unusual
behavior?

(The Prosecution:] Objection, your Honor, relevance.
thie tg noe

‘THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection, yeah.
I'm wondering whose on trial here at this point

 

 

ue stick, to

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

on redirect examination, Minor again stated that, after Roman's
second request that Minor grate the cheese, Minor did as he was
told but Roman “didn’t like the way that [Minor was} doing it.*
When asked how Mother would discipline hin if he misbehaved,

Minor responded that:

   

inor:] She would spank =e,
5y the Prosecution: ] And where would she spank
you?

wy
ala
Did she ever slap you on the

 

 

fe ever kick you?

 

2. Police officers’ Testimony
officer Bolos testified that, on May 12, 2002, he
responded to a domestic abuse call coming fron Ronan’s residence.
He stated that he spoke with Roman and Mother, who told him that
they had been arguing. Officer Bolos did not speak to Minor and
testified that Minor had already left by the time he arrived at
the residence. He further indicated that he closed "the
miscellaneous public bulletin” because he “didn’t feel a case

needed to be made being that [Mother] told [him] that everything

 

was okay between (her) and (Roman).
Officers Matsumoto and Saludares testified that, on the

day of the incident, they responded to a domestic abuse call made

from Minor’s father’s residence. Officer Matsumoto stated that,

when she arrived at the residence,

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

(Minor) was in the garage area. Apparently he vas upset. I
observed that hie facial area was red but there was To
bruising. Apparently, he was allegedly struck in the face
several tines by his other's, I believe, boyfriend, Alfred
Roman. I asked him 1f, us, 1f he needed any kind of medical
assistance, uh, or anything, he said, no, be didn“e.

 

 

Officer Matsumoto did not notice any swelling to Minor‘s face.
on cross-examination, defense counsel asked officer Matsuroto,
‘when you saw the redness to the face, you did not know whether
it was an injury or not, correct?" Officer Matsumoto responded
in the affirmative and further agreed with defense counsel that
Minor was “fair skinned" and “had a red complexion.

Officer Saludares also testified that, when he spoke to
Minor, he observed that Minor “had some redness on hie face” and
‘scratches on his front neck area.’ Officer Saludares and the

prosecution then entered into the following colloquy:

9. [By the Prosecution:} what was [itinor's) demeanor?

1K. (sy Officer Saludaves:] (Minor) spake to Se in a
quieter lover tone, appeared to be a little afraid. just
Stying to think of a way to describe it but afraid in a way.
Not comforeable.

(@. wan he afraid of you?

Q. What made you think he was afraid?

K. Um, from what he cold ne, che incident chat
ccurrad that night and, uh, Just his demeanor, the way that
he spoke to me having a, a -- when he was talking about the
Enelgent that night’

Q. waa be upsst?

Ai Yes, a lietle

what was he telling you about the incident that

 

9
saber

Un, he informed ne that, um, his mother's boyfriend
had arrived home that Might, be war intoriested, at which
tine he had, ‘uh, began yelling and swearing at [Minor] and
hhad kicked hin in his Lower back area as well as began to
choke him on the front of hie neck area.

0. Officer, were you the lead investigator on this

 

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

@. And based on your observations of [Minor] and what
he told you, what did you doz

‘i. Well, T investigated further. We had took
photographs of the insuries, (*] officers assisted in
{neerviewing witnesses. Taleo, um, later made contact with
the suspect, iue., Soman.) in the case and hed advised hin
of] hie rights and obvained a statement

 

on cross-examination, officer Saludares testified that Minor was
struck in the face once.
3. Roman's Testimony
Roman testified that he and Mother had been
*boyfriend/gixifriend” since 1995 and that he treated Minor "1ike
@ step son.* Roman explained that he

moved in with (Mother) in 1995, this wag in Ainaloa, uh, 1
Swed my own home and we decided that after T was through
ith che probleme 1 had with wy ex-wife, that it was time
Yor us to'move in back to my home and we moved back in 1996,
Tbelieve it was, about a year later, uh, took care of
iuinor] Just 2ike (hel was my own KLGL.1

According to Roman,

(i]t was mother’s Day. 2 don’t have a lot of money
and it was sother’s Day and\I know chat [Mother], one of ber
favorite foods, is tacos -- (Mexican tacos eo T decided to
hake a taco dinner for her as Mother's Day dinner’

Okay) there's a -- if T may say this, 1 had already
cone £0 the store and returned before this incident even
Secured. 1 had gone to the store, I had purchased what was
hecessary, 1 came back, after which T had to leave again but
hot until T bad asked {Minor} 1¢ he could please grate the
Cheese and shred some lettuce that T had asked him before I
oft the second tima but 1 had done all my shopping as of
Chat point alveaay.

   

 

fieit) te -- 1 bought nim one of those walkman things
and he was’ laying dows in front of the televicion with his
walkean Just Blaring and T dint talk to (Minor) when T
Feturmed. I walked into the house and I walked over to the
Fefrigerator and? looked into the ice box and T seen chat,
the lettuce nor the cheese or any of that had even been
touched. Tt was still in the original containers.

 

 

 

* ae does not appear from the record that the photographs were adnitted
at the bench trial, ‘In fact, neither the prosecution nor defense counsel made
any mention of the photographs at trial

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

I started calling [Minor].

e’dia'not respond because the stereo on his head vas
0 Lowa’

Re'was laying down, facing the TV, and 1 walked maybe
from here to that desk away from him and 7 said, [Mince]
and he turned and he looked at me and --

You know, 1 said, [Minor], what about the cheese and
he just kept staring at ne, just staring, he just kept
Tooxing at me.

 

i waiked up to him, I kicked him dn his okete,

fie’ spun around, he spun to his feet, uh, T had no idea
what vas on his mind!

 

{and he stood there with a) clenched fist

bn, honestly, 7 felt at that point that I had fully
ost all'control of [Minor] as far as being a friend and a
ember of the family.

 

i dearéed yelling at him and he kept locking at ne, he
kept looking at me and 1 finally said, (Minor), hey, woat is
this, Imean, You want to hit me, go chead and hit me, and
he stepped forvard towards me and f slapped him. Your
Nonor, T slapped him acrosa the cheek.

 

I found myself -- well, he kept == he still would not
respond. There ‘as absolutely no response from him and at
first, 7 was going to call hie father and have the father
cone and pick the boy up and take him to hig home. And at
that point, T said, no, T think this should be recorded so T
ade & phone call to the (plolice [dlepartnest and t
told then of the incident that had happened and if they
could send some officers up as soon ae possible at which
time r'vent downstairs and sat in the patio until .”. the
officers arrived

 

 

 

Roman further testified that he "wanted to be noticed as the head
of the household which has never happened with [Minor] for many,
many years, which is why I never did physically, let me restate
this, slap, hit, I have never even punished (Minor) in all the
years that he was with me.’

Defense counsel also inquired of Roman whether he had

cution objected, and

 

problems in the past with Minor; the pro!

the family court sustained the objection. Defense counsel,

-10-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

thereafter, asked Roman whether, *[i]n the past, when [he] had
problens with [inor, he] took [Minor] to therapy," to which the
prosecution again objected. The family court indicated thet,
swith respect to therapy, the [court accept (ed) the fact that
[inor was} in therapy and, uh, did not find the fact that he’s
in therapy will provide an excuse or justification for [Roman's]
conduct on that day."

on cross-examination, Roman conceded that he drank a
six pack between 2:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on the day of the
incident. The prosecution, thereafter, asked Ronan:

9, {By the Prosecution:} you testified that
tyou! Kicked the victin to get his attention?
{By Ronan:) 7 kicked him in Big okole, yes.
And you slapped him in hia face?
3nd T’siapped hin in bis face.
Yen't it true you attempted to choke hin?
hela hin beck at one point Because I wasn't sure
exactly what was on his mind(.1

. iajan'e Le true that [sinor's} mother had to
Ancervene and pull you off of [Minor]?

Q! Ten’t it true thet you called the police and you
said, Y suet Bit ay girlfriend and my stepson?

Q. And you said you aid it because you, you were goint
to dithise the situation? ” °

A. twas trying to 30 —-

Q: You were trying £0 diffuse th
and slapping [itinor]?

Rritioy ho, Ro. T diffused the
incident that happened.

(0. fan'e it true that [Minor] attempted to grate the
cheese’ and you went and told him ehat he wasn’t doing 1
Hight and you told him to go and sit down?

Re abeotutely not.

 

porer

 

eteuation by keking

stuation of the entire

 

 

{As Aiscussed infra, Roman also challenges the ICA's conclusion that

the family court's exclusion of cartain evidence, assuting it was error, was
nevertheless harmless. The excluded evidence pertains to Roman's prior non
Physical attempts to address Minor's sisconduct, including evidence of Roman's
Gecision t0 seek therapy for Minor, that would have been adduced from Minor's
Gnd Roman's testimony, ae well ae from defense witness Prederick Williams.
Phip. (Dr. Williana), which the family court excluded based on relevancy,

 

 

 

oil
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Q. Zante it crue that [ilnor] did exactly whet you
told him to and he went and sat” down?

A. He never vas gracing the cheese 60 why should 7
tell him to eit down?

 

 

on redirect examination, defense counsel asked Roman “why did
[he] make the statement that [he] had just hit [his] wife or
(his] girlfriend and [Minor], to which Roman responded:

cause in my heart of hearts, T wanted this ended end
Z wanted it ended with the police and 1 wanted then to be
there as witnesses for me of what I en trying to do in this
situation that T believe it’s tine he leave the house and go
Live'with his father, which le what the boy wanted to 0 for

year “~ about a year before this because there is no
Sacspline at the father's house

 

4, Closing Arguments and the verdict

During closing arguments, the prosecution contended

that:

 

(oman) even attempts to raise the parental
Giécipline defence, one, I do not think it applies in this
case.” Un, the victim testified that[.] when his mother
Gisciplines hin, she spanks him on hic rear end. "she
Goeun’t kick him in the back, she doesn’t slap Aim in the
face. Also, your Honor, if you take the age of the child,
at the time’ 1) years old, un, I do not believe the
Biaconduct of the child, {f there 1s even any misconduct, he
Sttenpred to grate the Cheese, (Ronan) didn't iike the wey
he did, [Roman] told him to go and sit dow, he did exactly
hat AG was told to do go T don't see any misconduct on the
part of the child here

      

 

 

counsel, however, argued that:

Basically, your Honor, this is a fabrication of a child who
Goes not vane to be disciplined, At 17 years old, it's
pretty hard to spank a child on the bottor. Mr. Honan was
the man of the household, the head of the house, in essence,
the parent. “The [mother was sleeping, he had asked the son
to help with the meal. The son was defiant, refused to do
what he was being asked. The son's face was red. His face
was red today. He has a reddy complexion. Perhaps a snail
Welt showed up but had Mr. Soran intended co hurt him, there
Soulé have been mich more than a welt showing up.

o12-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

RS § 703-309{] permite the use of physical
force to pinian a minor child for ble or her misconduct and
to deter that minor from future misconduct. A parent's use
of physical force to panish or deter, therefore, is not
Subject to crininal liability provided Le 18 reasonably
felated to the welfare of the minor and within the scope of
Allowable physical force under the [sJtatute. | Although the
Sse cf physical force of the child rearing mached aay’
engender debate, it ia an option parente are free to employ
within the bounds of the (s|tatute. Your Honor, there was
fo evidence that ight that the child was repeatedly beaten.
Twould argue, your Honor, that this was just a
heagire of Mr. Ronan trying to discipline (Minor] when he
as defiant and refused to comply with his (request). ("]

 

 

   

on rebuttal argument, the prosecution again reiterated that, in

ite view, the parental discipline defense was inapplicable to the

 

instant case, arguing that “kicking the child and slapping a

child in the face is not reasonably related to his misconduct {.]*
Subsequently, the family court orally announced its

factual findings -- specifically that:

We have @ situation where, um, both adults have bad prior
Felationships and, uk, both adults meaning Mr. Ronan and
{Mother] and that they entered into a relationship with
inirly grow children involved and, Uh, it has been in such
Situations, « situation where people have to adjust to a
‘hole lot and this adjuetsent process is quite difficult for
Gveryone involved[.) Alfred Ronan is a fairly large person
and he nanner and deneanor 1a quite masculine and T think
he haa that sense of being in charge sort [sic) to speak.
The {elourt doews’t know (Mother] but che [elourt senses
Ghat she bad custody of the [Minor] and the relationship
Between [Roman] and (Mother) necessarily involved [Minor]
a, the [clourt also, uh, gained from the testimony that
‘itinor], hy had some emotionel problens, whether they’re
Felated' cathe divorce or not, the (elourt doesn’t know
that, Dut he did have sore probless and, uh, had to, had to
be treated, perhaps, aa @ special needs type of person and,
therefore, ‘uh, wae someone whose guidance and discipline had
to take a different: [indiscernible] ~~ different in the
gense that not the, ot the usual, uh, upbringing and the
{clout also senses that Mr. Rona recognized this and tock
steps to take care of the situation and that’s how we got

 

 

 

 

1 Te should be observed that, although the justification of self-
defense was raised at the comencenent of trial, the parties eppeared to focus
Srinarily upon the parental discipline defense by the end of trial. mdeed,

(5 discussed infra, the fanily court algo focused upen the parental discipline
Setease and, in fact, made no mention of the defense of self-defense

 

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

De, Williane involved in this picture With respect to
this particwar day, that is the date of May 12,
2002, ME. Roman, Uh, Wanted to have thie special day

for (wother] and had expected that (Minor) would participate
in this special occasion for (mjon and {mom was asked to
take it easy and rest and that the evening meal wosla be
prepared by Mr. Ronan and (Minor). “Us, the incident shat

Eeehepired’ ub) wap ‘not, in the’ (clours-auagtieeeioe ae

Tthink We. Ronan wanted hin to -- wanted [uinor) to
participate in this special day for’ (mJother and, uh, wanted
Eo have sone kind of influence in providing [Minor] with
sone Kind of incentive to help make this special day for
{miom and, uh, unfortunately, "uh, thus intent to provice
motivation and create a situation where, us, mom is treated
Specially not only by Alfred Ronan but also by (Minor). Os,
farmed out fo be a situation where Mr. Roman tried to gan
Control over the situation, i= escalated ro that point
Where we want you to take part and it got to a point where,
Sh, I’m going to sake you take part in this situation. Um,
with respect. to, uh, what happened that day, uh, the iclourt
Fecognizes that there are these many, many factors involved
land T thirk the [clourt has pointed ove that we"

with a gituation shere [sic] not dealing with someone who’

‘nag_done_ something wong. were dealing wach somesnina.

Tn other words, you know, there's Aor
(indiscernible) you're a dishonesty (sic) or wnat, dts dust
that insction on the Rart-of Minor] ‘so I’m pointing that
ut Because, uh, we come to The area of parental discipline
where discipline is to correct misbehavior ané, uh, ae the
(clourt sees it, uerre not ina situation where were
correcting mabensvlor but we're trying to rake eotrol of
where wer Th, BO,
the; uh, other aspect of this case, which the (ejourt hai
alluded’ to when we talked about contrel, is that stone

 

 

 

 

wade slap, Ub and that was ae the

Teachion co what waa deaned to be defiance’ Now, uh,
Shether the defiance justifies the slapping is a matter for
the {eloure 2

evel of enotion, [Minor] was kicked. —ne-stocd up he
‘Biated at Hr. Roman, he tad bis tite clenched, and ur
Soman. ub, wae also at 2 ban pltes of emotion and took thts

Eo bea defiant child. probably with the head chones stil.
So-and blaring. and nor aiving heed te whee Mr Rosen had
supected and. uh. there was such 2 fever of enoticn that Mc.
‘sen bit_ne or something to that effect. inviting a
‘Sonftontation. There nay be justification for the reaction
and at this point, we have, uk, Mother who is on the scene,
and, ‘uh, beconing part of what I/II relate to as a fracas
that thie physica? confrontation and the [elourt ie
Estiefied this confrontation involved thres people, that sc
ras physical, that there was a point that Mr, Roman put his
ands on [siinor]’s neck, and there was a point where
([Wother] also physically was man handled or struck by Mr.

-14-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(gmphases added.) The family court, thereafter, ruled that the
parental discipline defense did not apply to the above facts
because *[i]t was a situation where Mr. Roman tried to assert
control over the situation and did not get his way.
consequently, the fanily court found Ronan guilty of abuse of
family or household menbers, reasoning that:

oat the [clourt has noted is that [Roman] is not denying in

ny way that he had kicked, that he testified that he had

Kicked the child, and T won't call him a child, the 17 year

old boy, and he had slapped the boy. Um, and the (elourt.

further’ finds that those actione weve done in anger, first

ith respect to getting the chilé's attention and secondly,
In'reaction to the boy's defiance.

 

‘The family court sentenced Roman to, inter alia, two
years probation and fifteen days imprisonment, thirteen days of
which would be stayed pending the probationary period." ‘The
family court entered its written judgment on December 26, 2003
Roman filed a timely notice of appeal on January 23, 2004.
Roman's sentence was stayed pending appeal.
B. Appeal Before the ICA

on appeal, Ronan maintained that the family court erred
in convicting him of abuse of family or household members

because, inter alia:

 

+ me family court aleo ordered Ronan to (1) undergo a domestic
violence intervention progran; (2) submit to an alcohol abuse assessment,
follow recomended treatnent, and be subject to any requested random
Urinelyeia screening for drugs and/or alconol; and (3) not possess or consume
Slcotol during his probation period

 

 

 

use
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(2) the [family] court was wrong to conclude that the
parental discipline defense (HRS § 703-3092) {]) was
Tnapplicable co the instant case; (2). (the prosecution]
failed te negate Roman's parental discipline defense; {and}
(G) the [fantly) court exred by excluding evidence of
Roman's previous non-physical attempts to deal with Minor’s
Sataconducte,* which constituted a vielation of Roman's
constitutional right £0 present a defensel.]

 

 

 

sp0 at 1-2.

on January 22, 2008, the ICA, in a 2-1 SDO, affirmed
the family court's December 26, 2003 judgment, with Associate
Judge Nakamura dissenting, Specifically, the ICA resolved
Roman's above contentions as follows:

(2) ‘The family court clearly erred by not applying the
parental discipline defense in the instant case becauee
Roman's testimony, however weak, inconclusive, oF
unsatisfactory, was probative of the fact chat (a) Roman bad
parental authority over Minor, (b) ‘the force at issue was
exployed with due regard for Kincr’s age and size, ané (c)
the force waa reasonably proportional to the misconduct
being punished and reascnsbly believed necessary to protect
the welfare of the recipient, gate v. stocker, 90 Hawai'i
bs, 95, 978 P.2d 399, 409 (1999) ; age ARS 5 703-3092)

81 Hawai'i 5, 10-11, 921 P.24 725, 730-33,

 

   

 

(13567

i2) the fanily court’s error in ruling that the
parental discipline defense @id not apply in the tnatant
Ease vas harmless because the (prosecution) provided
sufficient evidence at trial to negate Ronan’s proffered
parental discipline defense. Given Minor's version of
Grents, there wae substantial evidence to support =
Conclusion that Ronan's kicking Minor in the lower back,
making it sore; hiteing him twice on the face, leaving
Fedness, soreness, and a lump there; arid choking Minor
because Minor did'not grate the cheese as instructed and
then aid not grate it ae Ronan wanted was not reasonably
proportional fo Minor“s misconduct or reasonably believed
Recessary to protect Minor’s welfare.

(G) Assuming(,) arguendo, the family court ebused its
Giscretion by excluding evidence, based on irrelevance, of
Roman's previous non-physical attempts to deal with Misor’
Sslsconduets* (Ronan tegtified thar he had never disciplined
of even punished (Minor) prior to the incident), such error
ae harmless:

 

    

 

 

 

$00 at 2-3. The dissent, however, believed that the fanily
court's failure to consider Roman’s asserted parental discipline

defense “affected (Ronan’s] substantial rights and was not

wt
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

harmless error." Dissenting Op. at 1. The dissent further
opined that "the family court harmfully erred in excluding
evidence of Roman’s non-physical attempts to deal with previous
incidents of misconduct by Minor (because t]his evidence was
relevant, under the parental discipline defense, to whether the
force used by Roman in this case was reasonably proportional to
the misconduct being punished.’ Id.

‘The judgment on appeal was entered on February 11,
2008. Roman timely filed his application on May 12, 2008. as
previously stated, this court heard oral argument on August 21,
2008.

TT. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Conclusion of Law

A [conciueion of aw] ie not binding upon an appellate
court and is freely reviewable for ite correctness. Tis
Court ordinarily reviews (conclusions of law] under the
Fight /wreng standard. Thus, a (eonclusion of law) that Le
ipperted by the [fanily} court's finding of fact and that
Fetlects an application of the correct rule of law will not
be overturmed- However, a [conclusion of law) that presents
Rixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the
Clearly erroneous standard because the court's conclusions
fare dependent upen the facts and circunstances of each
individual case.

State v. Reis, 115 Hawai'i 79, 84, 165 P.3d 980, 985 (2007)

  

 

(internal quotation marks, citations, and original brackets
omitted) (format altered).
8. Harmless Error

This court has stated that:

Error ie not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely
in the abstract. rt must be examined in light of the entire
proceedings and given the effect to which the whole record
Shows it is entitled. In that context, the real question

 

   

-17-
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION *
in West’s Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

‘becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error

 

ot harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of
conviction on which Se may have been based mist be set
aside.

State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 176, 986 P.24 1153, 1168 (1999)
(internal quotation marks, citations, and original brackets
omitted) (format altered)
HIT. DISCUSSION
on application, Roman contends, inter alia, that the

ToA, having concluded that the family court incorrectly declined
to apply the parental discipline defense, erred in affirming the
family court's December 26, 2003 judgment. Specifically, Roman

believes that the ICA erroneously held that the family court’s

   

error was harmless based on ite conclusion that the prosecution
had adduced sufficient evidence at trial to negate the parental

@iscipline defer

 

beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

As previously stated, Roman was charged with and
convicted of the offense of abuse of a family or household
members, in violation of HRS § 709-906. iis conviction required
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) he physically abused
Minor; (2) he id so intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and
(3) Minor was a present or former family or household menber of
Roman's. See HRS § 709-906(1). Roman, however, believes that
this use of force upon Minor was justified pursuant to the
parental discipline defense under HRS § 703-309(1), which
provides:

wis
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

‘The use of force upon or toward the person of another
se justifiable under the following circumstances:

(d) the actor is the parest or guardian or other
person similarly responsible for the general
fare and supervision of a minor, or a person
scting at the request of the parent, guardian,
Gr other reupontible person, and:

(a) The force is employed with due regard for
the age and size of che minor and is
Eeasonably related to the purpose of
Safemuarding of promoting the welfare of
the minor, including the prevention or
‘misconduct; and
gned to
Cause oF known to eveate a risk of
Sausing substantial bodily
injurysC} distigurenent,
pain or mental distress, oF
Reurological dasage.

 

 

 

rr

 

 

Based upon the plain reading of subsection (1), invocation of the
parental discipline defense mandates that Ronan

rake showing that the record contained evidence £0 support
the folloving elenents: (1) ne was a parent, guardian, oF
‘ther person as described in HRS'§ 703-309(2) 7 (2) he used
foree ageinst a minor for whose care and supervision he was
responsible; (3) Bis use of force was with due regard to the
age and eize of the recipient and reasonably related to the
purpose of safeguarding or pronoting the welfare of the
Riner, including the prevention or punishment of misconduct
and (4) the force used was designed to cause, oF known to
Greate a risk of causing, substantial bodily’ injury,
Sistiguresent, extrene pain or mental distress, or
peurclogical damage.

State v. Crouser, #1 Hawai’
(1996) (citation omitted), Further, the parental discipline

 

   

 

 

5, 10-11, 911 P.24 725, 730-31

defense was available to Roman “so long as gone evidence was

adduced, no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory it

> uns § 707-700 (1993) defines “aubstantial bodily injury’ as bodily
injury which cause

 

(2) A major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the
skins
(2) M'chemical, electrical, friction, or scalding burn of

fecond degree severity;

 

 
 

(3) A’bone fracture;
(@) 2 serious concussion; or
(5) X tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the

‘esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.

-19-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

might be, which was probative of [the aforementioned elements) ."
State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai'i 95, 95, 976 P.2a 399, 409 (1999)
(some emphases in original and some added) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Here, the ICA correctly concluded
that the parental discipline defense was available to Roman and
that the family court erred in failing to apply the defense

‘because Ronan’s testimony, however weak, inconclusive, or
Unsatisfactory, was probative of the fact that. (a) Roman had
parental authority over Minor, (b) the force at issue was
eployed with due regard for itinor’s age and size, and (e)
the force was reasonably proportional to the misconduct
being punished and reasonably believes necessary to protect
the welfare of the recipient:

 

  

S00 at 2 (citations omitted). Indeed, at oral argument before
this court, the prosecution conceded that the parental discipline
defense applies in this case, but believed that it had carried
its burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
As such, the issue turns to whether the ICA correctly held that
the family court's error was nevertheless harmless because the
evidence proffered by the prosecution was legally sufficient to
Gisprove the defense of parental discipline. spo at 2

Roman contends that the ICA erred in its harmless error
holding because the family court's

failure to consider Mr. Ronan‘s parental discipline defense
azounted to a denial of [his] constitutional due process
rights to present a defense, and to proof beyond
reasonable dost.

Tt is well-estabiished, aa a precept of constitutional
as well as statutory lax, chat due process requires that the
Prosecution establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of
Every clenent of the crine charged including that required
to negative any non-affirmative defenses, The family
court's erroneous disregard of Mr. Roman's defense eroded
the [prosecution] burden to prove each fact necessary to
establish str, Roman's criminal culpability in violation of
his constitutional rights. Such an error, when it ands up

 

 

-20-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

precluding consideration of a defense by the trier of fact
He not gubject to harnless error review.

‘here, as inthe instant case, the trier-of-fact
is altogether precluded from considering a defense, it is
not possible to conclude that such error sight not have
Sonteibuted to the conviction

 

 

Additionally, Roman asserts that

[tlhe evidence adduced at trial shows that Mr. Roman's use
of force met all of the requirenente set forth in HRS 5 703-
Sog(i}. Mr. fonan’s use of force by Kicking [Minor] in the
uct to get his attention and slapping him on the face when
{uiinor] physically challenged him was reasonable considering
iMinor] Was seventeen years old, and the force was used as
punishment of [Minor] "s disobedience and insolent defiance
Of ur. Roman's authority. It is undisputed that Mr. Roman's
luse of force at most caused [Minor] a little soreness in nie
Tower back and redness anda snail lump on mis cheek for an
unknown duration. Despite the fanily court's errors in
excluding relevant evidence, as discussed above, the record
Shove that the elenente of the defense were met and the
{prosecution} did not disprove any of these facts beyond &
reasonable doubt.

 

 

     

  

 

As discussed above, because Roman had met his burden

then

 

with respect to the parental discipline defense, the burde:
shifted to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Roman’s conduct did not come within the scope of parental
discipline as prescribed in HRS § 703-309(1). Stocker, 90
Hawai'i at 95, 976 P.2d at 409; see also Crouser, 81 Hawai'i at
11, 911 P.24 at 731 (*the prosecution had the burden of
disproving beyond a reasonable doubt the (parental discipline]
evidence that was adduced, or proving beyond a reasonable doubt
facts negativing the . . . defense") (citation omitted). In
other words, the critical inquiry is whether the prosecution
presented sufficient evidence to negate Roman's parental
@iscipline defense beyond a reasonable doubt, to which the TCA

answered in the affirmative.

-21-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Recently, this court succinctly announced that

the legislature, in creating the parental [discipline]
Gefenss law, recognised the right of parents to discipline
their children; that right, hovever, is not absolute. In
other words, i

 

 

Gieciplining their chides” but eu an
sith die regard as to the aliunt of force utiiiced ond must
be directed co prosote the welfare of the chad the-fares

used must (1) reasonably be proportional to the misconaucr
beitic puntahed and (2) reasonably be believed neceuaary $0
Brotect the weltare-of the reciptent, The means used <3

Ssterninina whether force Te Teast
ature of che tnfuries int
ged sae Gesicned to cause or mom to-create a risk of
‘Sausing ubssansiel bodily iniury, distiqurenent,extrene
Bain of ental distress. or neurological damage Given the
‘Shid-s 08 ad glug. These required factors are obviously
General in nature and, by their very terms, place a large
Snount of discretion with the courts to determine whether
the actions of @ parent fall within the paraneters of
parental discipline, os set forth in Hes § 703-309(1)
Clearly, there is no bright line that dictates what, under
all circunstances, is unreasonable or excessive corporal
Dantshment. Rather, che

ding’ Lo the ent d's shvstaue and at
istonduct of the chila, che nature of the discipline, and
ithe surrounding circussrances it necessarily follows
That the question of reasonableness or excessiveness of
physical punishnent given a child by a parent is detersined
on a case-by-case basis and is dependent upon the particular
Circumstances of the case.

State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i 149, 164-65, 166 P.3d 322, 337-38

 

 

 

 

(2007) (some emphases in original and some added) (citations
omitted).

Here, the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of
the incident, Minor was seventeen years old. Although he was a
minor at age seventeen, Minor was hardly a child. Indeed, the
family court stated, *1 won't call him a child, the 17 year old

boy’

 

"he family court explicitly found that the instant

 

concerned

-22-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

seoshady who bas oot done-something-as resested ior this
Tn other words, you Kiow

‘SSERSEE ene part of ulnar! so. t'm posaeing that out

because, uh, we cone to the area of parental discipline

Where discipline ie to correct mighehavior aha, uh, as the

(clout sees ic, weirs not in a situation where we're

‘fhetSitustion shere verre not having cooperation.
(Emphases added.) Based on the foregoing, the family court

apparently believed that Minor's failure to grate the cheese as
Ronan requested, or failure to grate the cheese to Roman's
satisfaction, was essentially an issue of “not having
cooperation’ as opposed to “misbehavior* or misconduct. The
family court, therefore, concluded that the parental discipline
defense did not apply. Curiously, however, the family court also
described Minor as a “defiant child,’ based on Minor’s
‘st(anding] up* and ‘star{ing]" at Roman with “his fists

clenched," and that Roman’s conduct in slapping Minor was a

 

sreaction to the boy’s defiance.
Characterizing Minor as being defiant but, at the same
time, characterizing Minor’s behavior toward Roman as simply
demonstrating a lack of cooperation defies logic. Indeed, Ronan
asserted -- before the ICA -- that the family court's finding of
Minor's lack of cooperation as not amounting to punishable

misconduct “goles) against common

 

and the experience of any
parent{.J* In our view, not cooperating with a defiant attitude
and demeanor is ‘misbehavior,* ive,, misconduct, on the part of
Minor as such behavior shows disrespect for parental authority.

Zt seems natural that Roman, as one of the persons responsible

-23-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

for the general care and supervision of Minor, would view Minor’s
attitude and demeanor as misconduct that warranted discipline.

In describing Roman's actions, the family court ~~ having
considered all of the evidence presented at trial -- expressly
found:

Anlhere was a kick, uh, that was to get attention, and at
another point, Gheie mia a giag, uh, ond that waa, aa the
{[clourt understands the ~~ at Least from one perspective, =
reaction £0 what was deemed to be defiance... We Xow
that at this point there was a high level of ‘enotion:

 

adds fists clenched. and Wr "Ronan, uh, was also at a
high pitch of enotion and took this to be a defiance child,
probably with the head phones still on and blaring, and not
Giving heed to what Mr. Ronan had expected and, un) there
faz puch a fever of emotion that Mr~ Roman even #aid words
te'che effect that if you ike, you can hit me or something
to that effect, inviting @ confrentation.

 

 

 

 

(emphases added.) Roman, thereafter, slapped Minor in the face.
According to Minor, Roman's discipline caused a little soreness
in his lower back and redness and a small lunp on his cheek for
an unknown duration. There was no evidence of bruising or
swelling: nor @id Minor require medical attention. Further,
there was no evidence to indicate any detriment to Minor's
overall well-being or physical, emotional or psychological state.
aq HRS § 703-309(1)(b). ‘Thus, considering the totality of the

facts and circumstances, the force employed by Roman (1) wi

 

reasonably proportionate to Minor’s defiant behavior towards

Roman and (2) was reasonably believed to be ne

 

jary to
discipline Minor for his defiant attitude and demeanor.

Moreove:

 

the degree of force used was “not designed to cause or

known to create a substantial risk of causing bodily injury,

-2a-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress, or neurological
Gamage." ERS § 703-30(1) (b)

The discipline used by Ronan was slightly less than
that used by the defendant-father upon his seventeen-year-old
daughter in State v. Kainimoku, 9 Haw. App. 345, 841 P.24 1076
(1992). In that case, the trial court found the father’s use of
force against his daughter unjustified under HRS § 703-309(1)
(2985) and convicted the father of abuse of a fanily or household
member. 9 Haw. App. at 348, 861 P.2d at 1078. Specifically, the
father slapped his daughter on the face and punched her shoulder,
leaving a scratch and a bruise, and causing some pain of unknow
Guration. Id, at 347-48, @41 P.2d at 1077-78. On appeal, the
ICA reversed the father’s conviction, finding that the force used

was within the bounds afforded to the father

 

@ parent. Id. at
352-53, 841 P.2d at 1080. Likewise, in State v, Deleon, 72 Haw.
241, 813 P.2d 1382 (1991), the defendant-father’s conviction of
abuse of a family or household member was reversed on appeal even
though his use of force was more severe than that of Roman.
There, the father struck his fourteen-year-old daughter with a
folded belt six to ten times above her knees, causing pain
lasting for an hour and a half, and bruises lasting for about a
week, 72 Haw. at 242-43, 813 P.2d at 1383

More recently, this court in Matavale held that the
defendant-mother’s used of force upon her fourteen-year-old
Gaughter fell within the parameters of the justified parental

-25-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

discipline defense statute. 115 Hawai'i at 168, 166 P.3d at 341.
In that case, the mother

Gisciplined her dlaughter for her continuously defi:
behavior in refusing to answer [the mother’s questions and
in Tying to ber. Specifically, (tne lather hie [the
Glaughter with a plastic backpack because [the dJaughter
Fefused to respond to. [the mother's questions(. ‘The
Blother hit [ehe dlaughter wich a plastic hanger because
{the laughter again refused eo answer (her] questions

the mlother laleo! his [ehe dlaugneer once with the flat
side of a snail car brush and once with a plastic handie of
a tool.

Id. at 167, 166 P.3d at 340. The daughter testified that,

 

 

although she experienced some pain at the time of che
Incident, (the mother was not hitting her hard. In fact,
[the dJaighter indicated that, out of the four implements
used by [the sJother, two of them (the flat side ef the car
brush and the plastic handie of the tool) did not hurt oF
Gid "not really" hurt and the other two (the backpack and
the plastic hanger] only hurt between levels two and five
(on s teale of one to ten with ten being svery painful)

 

Ads at 166, 166 P.3d at 339. ‘The daughter's injuries consisted

of a few small bruises that were visible for about a week. Id.

 

Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances, this
court held that the force employed by the mother was reasonably
proportionate to the daughter's defiant behavior towards her
nother and was reasonably believed to be necessary to discipline
the daughter and that the force used did not exceed the
protection of HRS § 703-309(1). Id, at 165-66, 166 P.3d at 338-
39.

In contrast, the ICA in State v. Tanielu, 82 Hawai'i
373, 922 P.2d 986 (App. 1996),

=26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

agreed with the trial court that the *viclousness of the
attack (the) defendanc was involved in severed any
Felationship between the use of force and the welfare

he daughter which aight be considered “reasonable,
{82 Hawai's} et 381, 922 P.2d at 994 (oone internal
quotation marks on{tted). In that case, the defendant
eked his fourteen-year old daughter in the shin, slapped
her six to seven tines, punched her in the face five to ten
Eines, stonpea on her face, and pulled her ears after
discovering that she, inter alla, violated his orders not to
see her verbally and physically abusive eighteen-year-old
boytriend, id. at 376-77, 922 P.2d at 989-90. ‘Toe ICA held
that, based on the nusber and nature of the slaps, punches,

icks inflicted upon the daughter and the police

observation of the daughter's laceration and
contusions, the fanily court did not err in rejecting the
parental (discipline) defense. id.

Matavale, 115 Hawai'i at 164, 166 P.3d at 337 (other citation

 

f

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

omitted) (summarizing Tanielu). Similarly, in Crouser, the

defendant punished his girlfriend's fourteen-year-old daughter

 

because she forged a school progress report by (1) hitting hi

 

across both sides of her face, (2) knocking her to the floor,
(3) throwing her on the bed, and (4) hitting her bare buttocks
with a plastic bat to the point where the bat broke. 81 Hawai'i
at 8, 911 7.24 at 728. The daughter testified that she had a
hard time sitting and felt dizzy for an hour or so, and her
bottom was bruised, had a deep reddish-purple color, and hurt for

a couple of weeks after the incident. Id. at 8-!

 

, SIL 2d at
728-29, ‘This court affirmed the defendant's conviction of abuse
of @ family or household menber because the force inflicted upon
the daughter exceeded the permissible level of discipline. id
at 12-13, 911 P.2d at 732-33

-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Based upon the foregoing discussion, we do not believe
Roman’s discipline was excessive in light of Minor’s age, his
misconduct, and the comparatively mild physical force used by
Roman. In both Crouser and Zeniely, the injuries suffered by
the minors were far more severe than Minor’s injuries. The pain
in those cases lingered for several weeks and were far more
severe and intense than the “little sore[ness]" experienced by
Minor, Furthermore, the nature of the injuries suffered by Minor
in the instant case and the duration of any resulting pain were
not nearly as severe as those described (1) in Kaimimoku, where
the minor was slapped in the face and punched in the shoulder
several times, leaving scratches and bruises and causing some
pain of unknown duration, (2) in Deleon, where the minor was
struck six to ten times above her knees with a folded belt, and

(3) in Matavale, where the minor was struck several times with

 

various instruments, leaving some small bruises. Yet, in those

cases, the appellate court determined that the degree of force

 

used did not exceed the boundaries of HRS § 703-309(1) (b). Here,

no evidence was adduced that the degre

 

of force employed by

we are mindful that, in determining whether the force employed by
Ronan was Feasonable, consideration mist be given co not only Minor's age and
the nature of the injuries inflicted, but also to Minors size. However, the
record does not contain any evidence concerning Minor’s size. Nevertheless,
in light of Minor’s mininal injuries, including evidence of no bruising, po
swelling, nor the seed for medical attention, we do not believe that the lack
of evidence relating 20 Minor’s size is fatal to the analysis. In fact, as
Giscussed above, minor was older than the minors involved in Deleon and
Matavale who had suffered more severe injuries than Minor in this case.
Thdeed, in thoge cases, the stature of each of the minore at the time of the
relevant incident was also unknown

 

 

 

 

 

   

-28-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

 

Ronan caused bruising, swelling, or required medical attention
Consequently, Roman's discipline was not so excessive that it
‘severed any relationship between the use of force and the
welfare of [Minor] which might be considered “reasonable. ’*
Tanielu, 82 Hawai'i at 361, 922 P.2d at 994. The discipline used
by Roman was reasonably proportionate to Minor’s misconduct,
ise., his defiant attitude and demeanor, and the discipline was
necessary to punish Minor's misconduct. Therefore, we believe
that, in light of the circumstances in this case, including the
family court's expressed findings, the prosecution failed to
@isprove Roman’s parental discipline defense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, we hold that a reasonable possibility exists
that the family court's failure to apply the parental discipline
defense might have contributed to Roman's conviction such that
the error cannot be said to be harmless. see Gano, 92 Hawai'i at
176, 988 P.24 at 1168. Consequently, the ICA's harmless error

holding cannot stand."

5 Ag noted gupza in note 6, Roman also contends that the ICA erred in
concluding that the family court's exclusion of evidence relating to Roman's
pricr non-physical attempts to address Minor’s prior incidents of misconduct
Mas harmless Beyond a reasonable doubt. owever, Roman's contention need aot
be aciressed inasmuch ag the above discussion rendars the contention moot.

 

-29-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

IV. ConcLUSTON

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the ICA's February

 

11, 2008 judgment and reverse the family court's December 26,

2003 judgment.

Henry P. ‘Ting, Deputy Public Fi

Defender (Deborah L.. Kin, on

Deputy Public Defender, on
the application), for

petitioner/defendant- Game Peis be +
appellant Alfred J. Roman

Mary Ann Hollocker, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney, for
respondent /plaintiff~
appellee State of Hawai'i

CONCURRENCE BY NAKAYAMA AND ACOBA, Jd.

We concur in the result only.

Neste Octane

| mann

=