Title: State v. Murauskas

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘*sNOT FOR PUBLICATION®#*

No. 25068

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
KEITH MURAUSKAS, Defendant -Appellant

and

 

EDWARD WALLACE MARTIN, Defendant

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(cR. NO. 99-0704)

Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama,
‘Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (the prosecution)
f41ed a complaint charging Defendant-Appellant Keith Murauskas
(Defendant) in Count 1 with murder in the second degree of Paul
Salazar (Paul), Hawai's Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5
(1993),! in Count IZ with attempted murder in the first degree of

Paul and his wife, Virginia Salazar (Virginia), HRS $§ 705-500,*

 

 

+ Hewat" Revised Statute (HRS) § 707-701.5(1) atates that “(except
as provided in section 707-701, a person conmits the offense of murder in the
fecond degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of
another person.”

 

   

 

+ RS § 705-500 states as follows

(2) Amerson is quilty of an attennt to commit a
crime 12 the person’

Tneentionslly engages in conduct which would
constitute the crine if the attendant
Sircunstances were as the person believes then
to bey or

    

©
Teontinued...)
 

707-701 (2) (a),? and 706-656 (1993 & Supp. 2004),* in Count IIT

with attempted murder in the second degree of Virginia, HRS §

705-500, 707-701.5, and 706-656, and in Count IV with kidnapping,

HRS § 707-720(1) (b) (1993). In a jury trial before the circuit

court of the first circuit® (the court) Defendant was found

guilty as charged as to Count II and Count IV of the complaint.

On appeal Defendant (1) “challenges . . . the

sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to support his

conviction in Count II” and (2) contends “the jury convicted

 

[Defendant] . . . based on their [sic] bias against (Defendant).”
1, -eontinued)
the circumstances as the person believes then to
bec_conatitutes a substantial step ina course,

Sommission of the crime.

(2) When causing @ particular result is an elenent
of the crine, s person ie guilty of an atteapt to commit the
Crime 1f, acting with the state of mind required to
eetablish liability with respect to the attendant
Circumstances specified in the definition of the crime, the
person intentionally engages in conduct which {s a
Substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to
cause such a result.

3)

 

(Emphases added.)

 

Rs § 707-701 (2) (a) states that “(al pet

murder in the first degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the

Geath of

Imjore than one person in the sane or separate incident (.]"
Rs § 706-656 (Supp. 2004) states in pertinent part as follows:

(2) Except
pertaining to. enhan
persons convicted of
Eecond degree murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment
with possibility of parole.» =

  

HRS § 707-7201) (b) states that “[a} person commits the offense of

kidnapping {f the person Antentionally or knowingly restrains another person
Wich intent to. + [ulse thet person a8 2 shieid or hostage(.]”

‘The Honorable Oexter D. Del Rosario presided.

2
‘++¢NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

 

 

Defendant requests that his conviction of the attempted murder of
Virginia be reversed and an acquittal with respect to Virginia be
filed, and does not oppose entry of a guilty verdict for murder
in the second degree as to Paul. The conviction in Count IV for
kidnapping is not challenged on appeal.

As to the first ground, when the sufficiency of the
evidence is challenged on appeal the standard of review is that

evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in
the strongest light for the prosecution when the appeliat
Gourt passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to
Support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the
case was before a judge or jury. The test on appeal is not
Whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, But
Whether there was substantial evidence to support. the
Conclusion of the trie: of fact

State v. Young, 93 Hawai'i 224, 230, 999 P.2d 230, 236 (2000)

 

 

 

(citations omitted). Substantial evidence is defined as
“credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative
value to enable a [person] of reasonable caution to support a
conclusion.” State v. Batson, 73 Hawai'i 236, 248-49, 831 P.2d
924, 931 (1992).

‘The testimony of codefendant Edward Wallace Martin
(Martin) was that he and Defendant decided to rob Paul. Martin
maintained that because Defendant “didn’t want anybody ratting on
him,” they agreed to commit a “double murder” “from the
beginning.” According to Martin, they planned to “go up to
Paul's apartment,” “do Paul first,” then kill Virginia, Martin

n hit with a hanmer and stabbed

 

testified that after Paul had bi
with a knife, “the plan. . . to kill [Virginia] when she (got)

home” was “still in effect.” Martin indicated that “(t]he plan

3
‘**¢NOT FOR PUBLICATION®**

was for [Defendant] to grab [Virginia] when she came to the door,
take her to the bathroom, and kill her in the tub[.]" Martin
further testified that “after Paul was dead already, - - -
[Defendant] made preparations to wait for Virginia to come to the
door. . . . He cleared himself @ little space behind the front
door and he just was going to crouch there and wait for her to
open the door up.” Defendant had a hunting knife with him and
the hamner.

In sum, Defendant asserts that no substantial steps
were taken with respect to the attempted murder charge against
Virginia because

tthe acts committed by these two perpetrators after the

Eharhnent: crouching down the window, end periodically
Resting out of the window in search for (Visainial, and

nner. inl
Beyond that, however, absoiutely nothing
Secarred.

(Emphasis added.)
HRS § 705-500(1) (b) applies if “the defendant’ s conduct
has advanced so far tovard the criminal objective as to
constitute @ substantial step ina course of conduct intended to
reach that objective.” Conmentary on HRS § 705-500. In the
instant case, the court’s attempt instruction and its first
degree attempted murder instruction rested on the language of HRS
$ 705-500(1) (b). According to the Commentary, with regard to
subsections (1) and (2) of HRS § 705-500, “[s]ubsection (3)
provides that conduct shall not be considered a ‘substantial

step’ under subsections (1) and (2) unless it is strongly
‘*¢NOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

corroborative of the defendant’s criminal intent.” Id, In that

connection, .

fon the other hand,

there are, certain tyes of conduct,
Wich, Tf strongly corroborative of the defendant's crisinal
Antent._could reasonably be held to -conabitute a

Seubstantisl step"and should not beheld insufficsent on

(el Tuga ih ait, seefching for, oF folioving ome
Contenplated victin of the eine’; . = (e) possession of

Which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which

pa ae oh nusoss of She acter uses oe
‘Id. (emphases added). These examples encompass the evidence to
which both the defense and the prosecution refer. As to “lying
in wait,” the testimony of Martin related he and Defendant had
planned to kill both Paul and Virginia and waited in the living
room for Virginia after Paul had been killed, on the assumption
Virginia would be coming home. As to the “possession of
materials to be employed” in the planned murder of Virginia, the
codefendants waited for her in the living room in her apartment

and Defendant had with him a knife and a hammer at the ready.

 

Such conduct was “strongly corroborative” of criminal intent and
under HRS § 705-500 such conduct can be held “reasonably” to
constitute a “substantial step” in attempting to connit
Virginia's murder.

As to the second ground, Defendant refers to “the
horrific nature of the crime, . . . [Defendant’s] in-court
testimony where it is apparent he lied, . . . (Defendant) causing

+ counsel to approach the bench regarding various questions

he desired to be asked of various witnesses and his acting out
‘+*eNOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

behavior.” However, he cites no law and makes no di

 

of Honolulu, for Prat Oe eter

plaintiff-appellee.