Court Opinion

ID: 9950336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 19:07:59.45256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:37.358301
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 13-MAR-2024
                                                 08:14 AM
                                                 Dkt. 87 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                        OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                  v.
                  BYRON DEREGO, Defendant-Appellant

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                      (CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By:    Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

           Defendant-Appellant Byron DeRego (DeRego) appeals from

the Order Denying Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, entered on

October 11, 2022, and the Judgment, Conviction and Sentence

(Judgment) entered on October 14, 2022, by the Circuit Court of

the Second Circuit (circuit court).1        On August 12, 2019, DeRego

was indicted on one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree2

     1     The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided.

     2     The indictment stated, in relevant part,

           That on or about the 31st day of March, 2019, in the County
           of Maui, State of Hawaii, BYRON DeREGO did knowingly engage
           in sexual penetration with another person who is less than
                                                            (continued . . .)
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(1)(b)

(2014).3    DeRego pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to

a jury trial.      The jury found DeRego guilty as charged.           DeRego

was sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment.

             DeRego raises two points of error on appeal,

contending that (1) "[t]he conviction should be reversed for

prosecutorial misconduct"; and (2) "[t]rial counsels were

constitutionally ineffective[.]"

             Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve DeRego's points of error as follows:

             (1)   We conclude that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

(DPA) did not commit prosecutorial misconduct.            "The term

prosecutorial misconduct is a legal term of art that refers to

any improper action committed by a prosecutor, however harmless

or unintentional."       State v. Conroy, 148 Hawai‛i 194, 201,

468 P.3d 208, 215 (2020) (cleaned up).           We review contentions of

prosecutorial misconduct under the harmless beyond a reasonable

     2(.   . .continued)
             fourteen (14) years old, by inserting his penis into her
             vagina, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in
             the First Degree in violation of Section 707-730(1)(b) of
             the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

     3      HRS § 707-730(1)(b) (2014) provides, in pertinent part, "A person
commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree if. . . (b) The
person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with another person who is
less than fourteen years old[.]"
                                       2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

doubt standard.      See State v. Mainaaupo, 117 Hawai‛i 235, 247,

178 P.3d 1, 13 (2008).

          DeRego's contention that the DPA violated the circuit

court's order granting DeRego's Motion in Limine No. 23, which

instructed that "any reference by Dr. Kepler as to why the

Forensic Examination of complainant was not completed and/or any

explanations by Dr. Kepler as to complainant's emotions during

the examination be excluded," lacks merit.              The record reflects

the DPA's examination of Dr. Kepler as follows,

                Q [by DPA]. And as part of your exam of the child,
          you do a genital exam of this child?

                A [by Dr. Kepler].     Yes.

                Q.    And did you examine her hymen?

                A. I -- I began to examine the hymen but she
          resisted and cried.

                      [TRIAL COUNSEL]:        Your Honor, could we
                approach?

                        THE COURT:   Yes.

                        (The following was heard at the bench.)

                      [TRIAL COUNSEL]: I believe prior to trial it
          was agreed upon on at the motion in limines about the
          crying and –- and so –-

                      [DPA]: That's correct. Yeah, and I told him
          he –- I told him out there he shouldn't mention that. So
          I –-

                      [TRIAL COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we want to confer
          quietly with our client as to whether we need to make a
          motion for mistrial if we could have five minutes. . . .

                . . . .

                        (The following was heard at the bench.)

                      [TRIAL COUNSEL]: Your Honor, during the break
          we conferred with Mr. DeRego. The defense will not be
          requesting a motion for mistrial. We will ask that the

                                       3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           last answer be stricken and have the jury instructed to
           disregard the last answer. Thank you.

                        (The following was heard in open court.)

                       THE COURT: The Court will note that the Court
           is striking the last statement by the witness and the jury
           is instructed to disregard that statement and we can
           continue with the testimony.

           As the transcript reflects, Dr. Kepler provided the

unsolicited commentary regarding the complaining witness's

emotional response, and the circuit court, at the request of

DeRego's counsel, struck Dr. Kepler's response and ordered the

jury to disregard the response.4

           Moreover, DeRego's contention that the DPA violated

the circuit court's order granting DeRego's Motion in Limine

No. 25, excluding evidence regarding DeRego's extradition to

Hawai‛i from Nevada, also lacks merit.         The record reflects that

the circuit court ordered, with regard to Motion in Limine No.

25, "as far as [DeRego] being extradited out of state, then I

will grant the motion as to that information."           The DPA's cross-

examination question to DeRego, regarding whether DeRego had a

surgical procedure performed in Nevada, was not on the subject

of DeRego's extradition.       And the DPA's question to another

witness, as to whether DeRego "drive[s] around in the same

     4      To the extent that Dr. Kepler's testimony constituted an improper
remark by a witness, we conclude that the statement -- which was immediately
stricken from the record, at the request of DeRego's counsel, with an
instruction to the jury to disregard the remark -- was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. See State v. Samuel, 74 Haw. 141, 149, 838 P.2d 1374, 1378
(1992) ("In determining whether improper remarks made by a witness
constitutes reversible error, the same analysis used for prosecutorial
misconduct is applicable.").

                                      4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Bronco [vehicle][,]" did not solicit the witness's subsequent

reference to DeRego's extradition -- i.e., "[w]hen the police

got him from the mainland[.]5       We thus conclude that the DPA's

questions were not in violation of the circuit court's in limine

rulings.

           (2) With respect to DeRego's contention that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, we conclude

that the record is not sufficiently developed for this court to

address DeRego's claim that his trial counsel permitted the DPA

to "run[] roughshod[,]" and failed to move for a mistrial.

State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 439, 864 P.2d 583, 592 (1993)

("[N]ot every trial record is sufficiently developed to

determine whether there has been ineffective assistance of

counsel; indeed, a defendant is often only able to allege facts

that, if proved, would entitle him or her to relief.").

           We thus affirm the Judgment without prejudice to

DeRego's filing of a petition for post-conviction relief,

pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40, to allow

for the development of a factual record as to those contentions

of ineffective assistance of counsel.         Silva, 75 Haw. at 439,

864 P.2d at 592-93 ("[W]here the record on appeal is

      5      To the extent that this unelicited response constituted an
improper remark by the witness, we conclude that the statement, which was
immediately stricken from the record by the circuit court with an instruction
to the jury to disregard the witness's statement, was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. Samuel, 74 Haw. at 149, 838 P.2d at 1378.
                                       5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

insufficient to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel,

but where: (1) the defendant alleges facts that if proven would

entitle him or her to relief, and (2) the claim is not patently

frivolous and without trace of support in the record, the

appellate court may affirm defendant's conviction without

prejudice to a subsequent Rule 40 petition on the ineffective

assistance of counsel claim.").

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 13, 2024.

On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Gerald T. Johnson,                    Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
                                      /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Richard B. Rost,                      Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui,                       /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee.               Associate Judge

                                  6