State v. Sylva

153 Haw. 447

541 P.3d 1210

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Kumulipo Iwa Coyote SYLVA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-21-0000478

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

December 29, 2023

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-21-0000478; CASE NO. 2CPC-18-0000240)

William H. Jameson, Jr. for petitioner

Richard B. Rost for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., McKENNA AND EDDINS, JJ., CIRCUIT JUDGE KAWASHIMA IN PLACE OF NAKAYAMA, J., RECUSED, AND CIRCUIT JUDGE NAKAMOTOIN PLACE OE WILSON, J., RECUSED

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J:

I. Introduction

Defendant Kumulipo Iwa Coyote Sylva ("Sylva") was charged by indictment with second-degree murder for killing Eduardo Alejandro Cerezo ("Cerezo"). Sylva admitted to killing Cerezo but asserted the affirmative defense of a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding penal responsibility ("insanity").

Sylva’s jury trial turned largely on, the testimony of three medical examiners appointed by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("circuit court"). The examiners testified concerning-Sylva’s mental state pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 704-410 (2014). All three examiners agreed Sylva was affected by a mental disease, disorder, or defect at the time of the conduct. Two of the examiners further-opined that, as a result, Sylva lacked capacity under the legal standard for insanity, thus excluding criminal responsibility. One examiner disagreed.

The circuit court struck parts of the testimony of one of the examiners who had opined that Sylva lacked capacity, psychiatrist Martin Blinder, M.D. ("Dr. Blinder"). Defense counsel had asked Dr. Blinder, to explain the basis for his opinion. The prosecutor objected to the "last phrase" of Dr. Blinder’s answer, in which Dr. Blinder stated Sylva was not a "bad man who goes around hurting people." (Emphasis added.) But after a sidebar, the circuit court instructed the jury to disregard Dr. Blinder’s "last response." (Emphasis added.) The circuit court also sustained the prosecutor’s objection to Dr. Blinder’s later testimony that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, but for Sylva’s mental illness, he would not have killed Cerezo. The circuit court stated before the jury, "I ordered it stricken earlier. I’ll order it stricken again."

Sylva was convicted of manslaughter based on extreme mental or emotional disturbance ("EMED").

We hold the circuit court erroneously struck parts of Dr. Blinder’s testimony because (a) a reasonable juror could have believed the circuit court instructed them to disregard Dr. Blinder’s entire answer explaining his opinion that Sylva lacked capacity; (b) HRS § 704-410(4) provides that medical examiners appointed pursuant to that chapter "shall be permitted to make any explanation reasonably serving to clarify" their opinion; and (c) the circuit court’s error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Sylva’s insanity defense turned largely on the medical examiners’ testimonies.

We also hold the circuit court properly instructed the jury on the application of the insanity defense to manslaughter based on EMED.

We therefore vacate the circuit court’s January 24, 2020 judgment, conviction, and sentence; as well as the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s ("ICA") January 3, 2023 judgment on appeal. We remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Factual background

On March 18, 2018, Sylva was arrested for killing Cerezo with a cane knife.¹

According to eyewitness Kyle Keoho ("Keoho"), earlier that afternoon, Keoho and Cerezo had boarded a bus in Pukalani, Maui. While on the bus, they noticed another passenger, Sylva, "looking at [Cerezo] mean." Cerezo called Sylva a "pussy" and threatened to beat him up. When the bus arrived at the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Center in Kahului, Sylva, Keoho, and Cerezo got off the bus. Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight. Sylva stormed off.

Shortly after, Cerezo and Keoho made a purchase and entered a mall restroom. Sylva entered the restroom with a cane knife. Sylva said, "you guys are like demons. I send them to the moon." Sylva struck Cerezo’s neck with the cane knife, killing him. Sylva stated, "Oh, I guess he was a demon," and told Keoho, "Believe it or not, he was a demon."

Witnesses at trial testified that Sylva then fled the scene, stopping to hide his jacket and the cane knife. Sylva was apprehended by police at Kahului Community Center Park.

Sylva made various other references to demons before and after his arrest.

B. Circuit court proceedings²

Sylva was charged by indictment³ with the offense of murder in the second degree in violation of HRS § 707-701.5 (2014). Sylva did not deny that he caused Cerezo’s death but asserted the affirmative defense of insanity.

1. Medical examination

Sylva filed a motion for examination to determine fitness to proceed and/or penal responsibility.⁴ Pursuant to HRS § 704-400 (2014), a person is not criminally responsible under the Hawai‘i Penal Code if, "at the time of the conduct as a result of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person’s conduct or to conform the person’s conduct to the requirements of law." The circuit court appointed three individuals to examine Sylva’s penal responsibility pursuant to HRS § 704-407.5 (Supp. 2016): (1) Melissa Vargo, Psy.D. ("Dr. Vargo"), (2) Dr. Blinder, and (3) George C. Choi, Psy.D. ("Dr. Choi").⁵ The examiners submitted reports opining on Sylva’s mental state at the time of the conduct.

2. Medical examiners’ trial testimonies

At trial, amongst various other witnesses, Sylva called Dr. Vargo and Dr. Blinder to testify, and the State called Dr. Choi. All three examiners opined Sylva was affected by a mental disease, disorder, or defect at the time of the conduct. Only Dr. Choi opined that mental state did not substantially impair Sylva’s capacity so as to exclude penal responsibility.

a. Dr. Vargo

First, Dr. Vargo, a clinical psychologist, opined that at the time of the conduct, Sylva suffered from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, causing Sylva to experience hallucinations and delusions as well as mania and depression. Dr. Vargo further opined that to a degree of psychological certainty, Sylva lacked the "capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his be- havior to the conduct of the law" at that time. Dr. Vargo explained the basis for her opinion, including that Sylva had told her he did not believe killing Cerezo was wrong because Cerezo was a demon; it was a service to God.

b. Dr. Blinder

Next, Dr. Blinder, a forensic psychiatrist, opined that Sylva suffered from a psychotic disability profoundly affecting his ability to think clearly and his interpretation of what he sees. Dr. Blinder also opined Sylva’s criminal responsibility was "utterly lacking" at the time he killed Cerezo, and that Sylva’s disorder "resulted in a lack of capacity to control conduct under the law or appreciate wrongfulness."

Defense counsel asked Dr. Blinder to explain the basis for his opinion: "And could you help us explain why that is your opinion." Dr. Blinder responded:

Let me tell you how I go about making these judgments. The first thing that I look at when there’s a homicide is whether or not there’s a reasonable reason for the defendant to have done what he did. I’m not saying a good reason. There’s never a good reason to kill someone. But maybe a drug bust – a drug deal that went bad, guy is supposed to give him drugs, he pays him and doesn’t get the money, he takes his life, or he’s insulted on a racial basis or something that we wouldn’t approve of but we can understand, that there’s been a longstanding conflict between the killer and the person that he kills, and it’s unforgivable but understandable.

I look for that. If I find that, then it’s pretty well the end of my participation. So even if he’s got a mental illness, I don’t care. We’ve got a rational reason for doing it. A doubt – being paranoid is not therapeutic, but that’s irrelevant. I’m done. As far as I’m concerned, he does not meet that standard that you just heard.

In the case of Mr. Sylva, there is no rational reason. There’s a very superficial reason, but the basic reason is he’s got a mission, he’s got a mission to rid the world of demons, and he was just getting started. This was obviously, in his delusional mind, a dangerous demon, and for some reason, he – he’s been anointed by what he reads in the Bible to take care of this problem.

And that’s nutty and it’s crazy, and absent for that nutty, crazy thing, he wouldn’t have hurt anybody. He’s not, you know, a bad man who goes around hurting people. But when he –

(Emphasis added.)

The prosecutor then objected, "Your honor, I’m sorry, I’m going to object to the last phrase and ask that it be stricken." (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel asked on what grounds, and the circuit court stated, "that wasn’t the question that was asked." The parties then approached the bench for a side-bar. The following discussion was held outside the hearing of the jury:

THE COURT: Sorry. So here’s what he said in the answer: "If it wasn’t for this nutty thing, he wouldn’t have hurt anybody. He’s not a bad man."

What part of that was the opinion that went to the question you asked?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think he was explaining why he arrived to that opinion.

THE COURT: No, no. I get that part, and that part he can answer.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay.

THE COURT: But he says – he’s just editorializing, saying if it wasn’t for this, this wouldn’t happen and he’s not a bad man. If that was the question you asked, that would be okay, but that’s not the question you asked. And the State is correct, I think, in saying he’s going beyond the opinion.

….

THE COURT: I mean, saying that he’s not a bad man, that’s not the issue. So I’ll sustain the objection – …., and have it

...