Opinion ID: 2514226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unlawful imprisonment

Text: In his second point on appeal, Apao contends that the jury should have been instructed that it must unanimously determine which specific act constituted unlawful restraint in the second degree because the evidence in the [second trial] . . . provided several separate and distinct acts which on [their] own . . . could have supported a [conviction for unlawful imprisonment]. A person commits the offense of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree if the person knowingly restrains another person. HRS § 707-722(1). `Restrain' means to restrict a person's movement in such a manner as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty . . . by means of force, threat, or deception[.] HRS § 707-700 (1993). Again, nothing in the statutory definition of the offense precludes the prosecution from proving that the restraint was accomplished by a series of acts constituting a course of conduct. It is not difficult to imagine a series of threats and coercive conduct that might be employed to sustain a kidnapping or unlawful restraint over a period of time. Moreover, this court has previously stated that, under certain circumstances, kidnapping would be an example of a continuing offense. See Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 18, 928 P.2d at 860. The facts established at the second trial, in which Apao was charged with kidnapping and convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (a lesser included offense), demonstrated that from the time that Apao began threatening Perez at the bus stop to get her into his car against her will until the time Perez escaped to the safety of the police officers when they arrived at the Kane`ohe residence, Apao was restricting her movement and substantially interfering with her liberty. Moreover, he was using multiple instances of force and threats to accomplish that goal. Apao contends that the evidence demonstrated that he restrained Perez continuously for several distinct periods. Although it is unclear what is meant by the foregoing description, Apao adds that there was also evidence that these periods were interrupted by periods of liberty or that the restraint did not occur until later in the incident. In support of that contention, Apao explains that Perez testified that she escaped briefly from Apao's control when the bus arrived. The testimony from Perez on this point was as follows: [Perez]: Then I seen the bus come. The bus pulled right in the back of [Solomon's] car. To me it's the only chance that I can  I was thinking I can get up, walk to the car, but then run towards the bus. [Deputy Prosecutor]: What happened? [Perez]: He grabbed  he grabbed me. I counted to three again. So I stood up. And he had me by the arm and walking towards the car. And then I tried to push away from him to get to the bus. But then he grabbed me by the hair again and told me you try and move I'm going to break your neck right now. And I just stood there looking toward the bus. [Deputy Prosecutor]: What happened next? [Perez]: Hopefully, the bus driver would have seen me or something. I don't know if she seen me. Then I  walking away towards the bus he kept on shoving me to the car. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Did he get you in the car? [Perez]: Yes. He finally kicked me behind and I fell to the ground and he pushed me into the car. I was on my hands and knees crawling into the car. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Did you want to get in the car? [Perez]: No. (Emphasis added). Absolutely nothing in the foregoing testimony suggests that Perez escaped (even briefly) when the bus pulled up. Apao also points to the testimony of Officer Kaneyuki, the police officer who had pulled up to the bus stop, to show that some of the jurors might have believed Perez was not restrained at the bus stop. Officer Kaneyuki testified that, when he arrived at the bus stop to investigate an anonymous tip regarding an argument between a man and a woman, he did not witness anything amiss. Moreover, Officer Kaneyuki testified that he asked Perez twice whether she was alright and both times she replied yes. Perez's testimony did not contradict Officer Kaneyuki's testimony. Perez testified as follows: [Deputy Prosecutor]: What happened next? [Perez]: He kept on intimidating swearing at me calling me names. Say, you know, what it is sitting down be in prison. [10] I go break you nose for that. I'm going to kill you right here. And, few occasions had some cops that would pass by. He would tell me run. He would tell me [Perez], go ahead, run for the cops, [Perez]. Go ahead. See if you're not going to be dead meat right now. He would nudge me to go. Run. Go ahead. Go run. Right there get the telephone number do nothing. He dare to go. And he would tell me I know how to break a person's neck. I can break your fu  break your neck right here and nobody would even know. [Deputy Prosecutor]: When he nudged you and he dared you to go, did you go? [Perez]: No. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Why not? [Perez]: I was scared. . . . . [Deputy Prosecutor]: You said something about a police officer coming. Tell us what happened at that point. [Perez]: After he came with the thing up under his shirt, [11] he sat by me and the police pulled right across the street from where he was and he came and he talked to [Solomon]. He didn't come to us, you know. I believe someone saw us some kind of commotion and called that cop because there was other cops passing by. He pulled up on the side and see directly what was wrong. He spoke to Sol. I don't know what he was saying. But at the same time [Apao] was saying if I move, he was going to break my neck. He going kill me. He did like that to me. Go. Go ahead. Right now. Go. Run. Go ahead so I can kill you. Let me have a reason for kill you. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Did you move? [Perez]: I didn't move. I was too scared. Based on Perez's and Kaneyuki's testimony, it is clear that Perez did not believe she was at liberty to leave when the police officer drove up. Moreover, there was no evidence that the police officer's arrival interrupted or terminated Apao's criminal conduct. Thus, Apao's continuous act of restraint, at least by threat, was not interrupted. Finally, Apao argues that the prosecution expressly invited the jury to view Apao's various acts as separate and distinct in his closing argument by telling the jurors that, if you believe [at] any point in this . . . that she was restrained because of his force and threats, the State would submit . . . that's Kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt[.] Even though the prosecution focused the jury's attention on multiple threats and conduct, each of which may have been conceptually distinct, the prosecution presented the series of acts as having constituted a single continuing course of conduct  i.e., one offense. See Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i at 329-330, 22 P.3d at 976-977. Specifically, the prosecutor went through each and every one of Apao's threats and acts on that day during closing argument and then stated: [T]his is a continuing course of conduct . . . [Apao's] rage was in place when he threatened to bring a gun back to the house when he left the first time [after discovering that Perez was no longer at the Kane`ohe residence]. It's still in progress when he goes to the bus stop for that hour. He keeps it in check just long enough so officer Kaneyuki doesn't suspect anything then he forces her in the car and takes her back there looking for confrontation with her and James and nobody at that point says anything other than Solomon but that he's in a blind rage, evil maniac. He's incoherent. He's raging to such an extent. In rebuttal argument, the prosecutor again emphasized that the incident as we know it started at that time and it went what, perhaps an hour and a half, hour and three quarters. We know at least there was an hour between the two different times Officer Kaneyuki saw [Perez] at the two different places and she was at the bus stop under her own guess about half a hour, 45 minutes before the officer ever came. This doesn't require Kidnapping to have occurred over two hours twenty minutes. It doesn't take any timeframe at all. So if you believe any point in this or feel that she was restrained because of his force and threats, the State would submit, ladies and gentlemen, that's Kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the foregoing, it is clear the prosecutor argued that Apao engaged in a series of acts constituting a continuous course of conduct and that the requisite conduct element for kidnapping (or unlawful imprisonment) was satisfied by the defendant's continuous conduct. See Rapoza, 95 Hawai`i at 329-330, 22 P.3d at 976-977. Accordingly, we hold that Apao's conduct, as proved by the prosecution, constituted a continuing course of conduct set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittant force with one general intent . . . and one [continuous] plan. See Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 18, 928 P.2d at 860. As such, a specific unanimity instruction was not required.