Title: State v. Rhoads

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

“+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
ee
No. 27316

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

NEIL A. RHOADS, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 04-1-0388)

y ots! NORD!
(py: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy JJ.)

 

In this tax fraud prosecution, defendant-appellant Neil
A. Rhoads appeals from the second circuit court’s May 12, 2005
judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of five years’
probation’ for two counts each of false and fraudulent
statements, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 231-36(a) (2001),?

‘and attempted theft in the second degree, HRS $§ 708-€31(1) (b)

 

(Supp. 2002)? and 705-500 (1993). On appeal, Rhoads argues

othe Honorable Joseph £. Cardoza presided over this matter

2 as § 231-36(a), entitled “False and fraudulent statements; aiding and
abetting,” provides in relevant part
'hny person who wilfully makes and subscribes any return,
Deatenent, oF other docunent required to be made under {the
Hawai Tax Code], which contains o: is verified by a written
Geclaration that ‘it is true ond correct as to every materi
fatter, and which the person does not believe to be true
Correct as to every material matter shall be guilty of a cless C
felonyl.)

 

 

   

> nes § 708-8312) (b) provides in relevant part that “[a) person commits
the offense of theft in the ‘second degree if the Person commits theft... «
[elt property or services the value of which exceeds £3001.]”

+ yas § 705-500(2) provides in relevant part:
hen causing @ particular result is an element of the crime, a
(continved.

 

 

ary
** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

that: (1) the jury instructions were plainly erroneous in that
(a) the instruction defining “gross income” was prejudicially
incomplete, (b) the instruction defining “property of another”
was misleading, (c) there weze no instructions concerning
(4) Rhoads’ reasonable reliance on professional tax advice,
statements of the Internal Revenue Service, and United states
Supreme Court opinions, and (ii) Rhoads’ constitutional right to
due process of laws and (2) his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by (a) failing to propose proper jury
instructions or object to erroneous instructions, (b) failing to
subject plaintiff-appellee State of Hawaii's case to “stringent
adversarial testing” regarding ownership of the allegedly stolen
money and the computations of Rhoads’ tax liability, and
(c) failing to conduct an adequate investigation regarding
ownership of the money.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we hold as

follows:

 

“(continued
person is guilty of an attempt to comit the crime if, acting with
the state of ming required co establsan Liability with respect to
the attendant circunstances specified in the definition of the
crime, the person intentionally engages in conduct which is a
Substantial step in a course of conduct intended ex known to cause
Such a result.

   
+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

(1) When read as a whole, the circuit court’s jury
instructions were not erroneous, misleading, or
prejudicially insufficient because the jury was
adequately instructed that the requisite state of mind
of both offenses was negatived by a good-faith belief
that the defendant was acting within the law. See
State v. Gonsalves, 108 Hawai'i 289, 292, 119 P.3d $97,
600 (2005) (“When jury instructions or the omission
thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review
4s whether, when read and considered as a whole, the
Anstructions given are prejudicially insufficient,
erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.” (Internal
quotation marks and citations onitted.)); and
(2) Based upon the record, Rhoads’ trial counsel

did not commit errors or omissions reflecting lack of
skill, judgment, or diligence, See State v. Wakisaka,
102 Hawai'i 504, $14, 78 P.3d 317, 327 (2003) ("the
defendant has the burden of establishing ineffective
assistance of counsel and must meet the following two-
part test: 1) were specific

sions ref +s lack of skill, judamen
or dilicence; and 2) that such errors or omissions
resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial

impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.”

3
++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

(Internal quotation marks, citation, and footnote
omitted: emphasis added.)). ‘Therefore,
IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED that the Nay 12, 2005 final
judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 3, 2006.
on the briefs:

Gerald T. Johnson

for defendant-appellant Ginn
Dwight K. Nadanoto, .
Deputy Attorney General, BiomBihan'soo
for plaintiff-appellee
Nee Cr eoteneperne

(NS

Gann €. 20951