State v. Kanakanui, 2025 Haw. App. LEXIS 459 (Haw. Ct. App. 2025)

The Intermediate Appeals Court of Hawaii found that defense counsel’s failure to object to references about the individual’s juvenile incarceration and prior arrests constituted ineffective assistance of counsel requiring reversal and a new trial. The Court stated in relevant part:

“Specific acts or omissions having an obvious tactical basis for benefitting the defense will not be second guessed. Salavea, 147 Hawai’i at 576, 465 P.3d at 1023. We can think of no obvious basis that evidence about Kanakanui’s prior arrests, convictions, and membership in a prison gang could have to benefit Kanakanui’s case. Its introduction was inconsistent with the trial court’s ruling that “under no circumstances” would evidence of Kanakanui’s prior arrests be admissible at trial because its prejudice outweighed its probative value. See id. Defense counsel’s omission reflects counsel’s “lack of skill, judgment, or diligence.”