Background
Sonny E. Puerto was charged with first-degree Electronic Enticement of a Child under HRS § 707-756 following “Operation Keiki Shield,” a law enforcement sting conducted in Hawaii County. An undercover detective posed as a 13-year-old girl on the MeetMe application. Puerto exchanged sexually explicit messages with the undercover agent—including asking if she wanted to “hook up” and making explicit sexual propositions—and agreed to meet her in person. He was arrested when he arrived at the designated meeting location. The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit sentenced him to ten years of incarceration.
Puerto appealed, raising five points of error: (1) denial of his motion to suppress additional statements, bag contents, and cell phone evidence; (2) denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal; (3) the circuit court’s voluntariness ruling on his text messages and the timing of that ruling; (4) prosecutorial misconduct during closing and rebuttal arguments; and (5) denial of his post-verdict motion for mistrial.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on all grounds. On suppression, the court found that Puerto’s challenge to “block information” such as his cell phone number was waived because it was never raised below, and that any error regarding the brown paper bag contents and cell phone evidence was harmless because Puerto failed to show those items were actually admitted at trial. On the motions for acquittal, the court held that the sexually explicit text messages and Puerto’s travel to the meeting place constituted sufficient evidence for a reasonable mind to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court rejected Puerto’s procedural challenge to the voluntariness ruling, noting that Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 12(b) permits oral motions at the judge’s discretion and that the admissibility issue had been raised months before trial. The prosecutorial misconduct claims also failed: the “Smirnoff” and “Starburst” references were grounded in admitted trial exhibits; the “Entrapment? Really?” statement was not shown by the transcript to involve the exaggerated tone Puerto alleged; and Puerto failed to identify any specific statement supporting his burden-shifting argument. Both mistrial arguments were waived for lack of adequate record references under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant challenging a suppression ruling must show the disputed evidence was actually admitted at trial — failure to do so renders any error harmless.
- Arguments not raised in the circuit court, and appellate arguments unsupported by record references or legal authority, will be deemed waived under Hawaii’s appellate rules.
- Prosecutors may comment on a defendant’s raised affirmative defense (here, entrapment) during rebuttal closing without committing misconduct, so long as the record does not support the defendant’s characterization of the remarks.
- Sexually explicit electronic communications combined with travel to an agreed-upon meeting place constitute sufficient evidence of intent to support a first-degree electronic enticement conviction under HRS § 707-756.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the viability of undercover online sting operations as a tool for prosecuting child enticement in Hawaii, confirming that communications with a law enforcement officer posing as a minor satisfy the statutory elements when the defendant travels to the meeting location. The case also serves as a reminder of the procedural discipline required to preserve appellate claims: failure to raise suppression arguments at the trial level, and failure to support appellate points with record citations and legal authority, will result in waiver regardless of the underlying merits.