Background
This case arose from a September 17, 2018 attack at the Kona Seaside Hotel in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, in which security guard John Kanui was beaten so severely that he became quadriplegic. Natisha Tautalatasi, Wesley Samoa, and Lama Lauvao were originally charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree. All three were convicted at the first trial, but the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial due to trial error.
At the retrial, which began January 18, 2024, the jury acquitted Tautalatasi of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree but convicted her of the lesser included offense of Assault in the Second Degree. Judgment was entered June 14, 2024. Surveillance video played at trial showed Tautalatasi approaching Kanui — who was already lying motionless on the ground after being beaten — kicking him in the head, and repeatedly punching him until she was pulled away approximately twenty seconds later. On the stand, Tautalatasi admitted the conduct and confirmed she was not acting in self-defense.
Tautalatasi appealed, raising three claims of error: (1) an erroneous self-defense jury instruction; (2) improper formatting and ordering of lesser-included-offense instructions; and (3) denial of her motion to suppress statements made to police and conditional allowance of her first-trial testimony for impeachment purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the conviction on all three grounds. On the self-defense instruction, the court acknowledged that the instruction — which included the word “immediately” — misstated the plain language of HRS § 703-304(2) and was contrary to legislative intent, consistent with its earlier ruling in State v. Reis, 155 Hawai’i 452, 566 P.3d 356 (App. 2025). Although Tautalatasi had herself proposed the erroneous instruction, the duty to correctly instruct the jury rests with the trial court. Nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: the surveillance video and Tautalatasi’s own testimony that she attacked an unconscious, motionless man and was not acting in self-defense made it impossible for any reasonable jury to find self-defense.
On the lesser-included-offense instructions, the court found no error. The trial court gave separate instructions for each included offense in descending order of severity, a practice expressly sanctioned by the Hawaii Supreme Court in State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509 (1989). Tautalatasi’s proposed combined instruction was potentially confusing, and the court’s approach of instructing the jury to consider greater offenses first was procedurally proper.
On the suppression issues, the court declined to decide whether either ruling was erroneous because any error was harmless. Defense counsel itself elicited the substance of Tautalatasi’s statements to the officer on cross-examination, negating prejudice from the denial of suppression. As to the prior trial testimony, the State never used it for impeachment, rendering any conditional ruling on its admissibility harmless or moot.
Key Takeaways
- A self-defense instruction incorporating the word “immediately” misstates HRS § 703-304(2), but the error is harmless where the defendant’s own admissions and surveillance video foreclose any reasonable self-defense finding.
- Trial courts do not err by giving separate lesser-included-offense instructions in descending order of severity rather than combining them; this approach is consistent with Hawaii Supreme Court precedent.
- Suppression errors are rendered harmless when the defense itself introduces the challenged statements through cross-examination, and moot when the prosecution never uses conditionally admitted testimony for impeachment.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the limits of the harmless-error doctrine in criminal appeals: even conceded instructional error on self-defense — an often outcome-determinative issue — will not warrant reversal when the record, including the defendant’s own testimony, conclusively negates the defense. Practitioners should note that proposing an instruction does not insulate the trial court from responsibility for correct jury charges, but it will inform the harmless-error calculus.
The ruling also illustrates the risk of “opening the door” to suppressed evidence through cross-examination. By questioning the officer about the substance of Tautalatasi’s statements, defense counsel effectively waived the benefit of any suppression ruling, a cautionary lesson for trial attorneys in cases where the defense strategy involves challenging the admissibility of a client’s out-of-court statements.