Background
Micaiah H. Smith was convicted after a jury trial in Hawaiʻi’s Third Circuit Court of electronic enticement of a child in the first degree and attempted promoting pornography for minors. The charges arose from Smith’s electronic communications with a police detective posing as a 15-year-old and an alleged dissemination of a digital image of a penis. The circuit court imposed, among other penalties, a ten-year prison term.
On appeal, Smith challenged the indictment, a jury instruction, the court’s handling of a lack-of-penal-responsibility defense, and counsel’s effectiveness. Smith had filed notice of a mental-disease, disorder, or defect defense, but defense counsel withdrew it during trial. Although the parties and court discussed State v. Glenn, the court did not conduct an on-the-record colloquy with Smith before the defense was withdrawn.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings because the circuit court failed to conduct the colloquy required by State v. Glenn before Smith waived a lack-of-penal-responsibility defense. That defense is a fundamental right belonging to the defendant, not counsel, and any waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
The court held that the circuit court erred despite recognizing Glenn and appearing to begin an inquiry, because counsel withdrew the defense and the court did not complete a colloquy with Smith. The appeals court did not reach Smith’s remaining arguments because the colloquy error was dispositive. It also concluded that Smith was not entitled to relief on his indictment challenges, which were raised for the first time on appeal and did not show that the charges failed to allege crimes or caused prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court must personally ensure that a defendant’s waiver of a lack-of-penal-responsibility defense is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- Defense counsel cannot waive that fundamental defense on the defendant’s behalf without the required colloquy.
- A post-conviction challenge to an indictment first raised on appeal requires a showing that the charge cannot reasonably allege a crime or that the defendant was prejudiced.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a defendant’s decision whether to pursue an insanity-related defense carries consequences distinct from ordinary trial strategy. Even where counsel seeks to withdraw the defense, the trial court must make an on-the-record inquiry of the defendant under Glenn.
For trial courts and criminal practitioners, the case underscores the need to complete the required colloquy whenever a colorable lack-of-penal-responsibility defense is being waived.