The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Naluakea Cavasso for theft. This decision, filed on July 31, 2026, clarifies the legal standards for jury instructions regarding included offenses in theft cases. The ruling impacts how similar cases might be handled in the future, particularly regarding lesser included offenses.
The case arose from an incident on January 20, 2024, when Cavasso was accused of stealing a cell phone from a 15-year-old boy, K.J. The incident occurred at Sandy Beach, where both K.J. and Cavasso had a prior dispute. Following a jury trial, Cavasso was found guilty of fourth-degree theft, which is a lesser included offense of the more serious second-degree theft charge he initially faced.
The dispute centered on whether the jury should have been instructed on fourth-degree theft as an included offense of second-degree theft from a person. Cavasso argued that the instruction was erroneous, as he believed that fourth-degree theft did not meet the legal criteria to be considered a lesser included offense of second-degree theft.
The State of Hawaii, represented by the plaintiff-appellee, countered that the jury instruction was appropriate. The court examined the definitions of theft under Hawaii law, specifically Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-831, which outlines second-degree theft, and HRS § 708-833, which defines fourth-degree theft. The court noted that second-degree theft could occur in two ways: by theft of property from a person or by theft of property valued over $750.
During the trial, the jury was instructed that to convict Cavasso of second-degree theft, they needed to find that he exerted unauthorized control over K.J.'s property with the intent to deprive him of it. If they found him not guilty of that charge or could not reach a unanimous verdict, they were to consider whether he was guilty of fourth-degree theft.
The court's ruling included a detailed analysis of the jury instructions given during the trial. The judges, led by Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, concluded that the instruction on fourth-degree theft was not plainly erroneous. They stated, "The errors within that instruction were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances of this case." This means that even though there were mistakes in how the jury was instructed, those mistakes did not affect the overall outcome of the trial.
The judges referenced previous cases, including State v. Mitsuda, to support their conclusion that fourth-degree theft could be considered an included offense of second-degree theft. They emphasized that the jury's decision to convict Cavasso of fourth-degree theft indicated they found the value of the stolen property did not exceed $250, which aligns with the definition of fourth-degree theft.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving theft charges in Hawaii. It clarifies the standards for jury instructions and reinforces the idea that lesser included offenses can be applicable even when there are complexities regarding the value of stolen property. The decision may influence how prosecutors approach similar cases and how defense attorneys prepare their strategies.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Cavasso will seek further legal recourse, such as an appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. There are no indications of pending related cases at this time, but the outcome of this case could inform future legal arguments regarding theft offenses in Hawaii.