The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently vacated the robbery conviction of Michael Akau, also known as Michael Jacob Akau, due to errors in jury instructions. This decision affects Akau, who was previously sentenced to ten years in prison for Robbery in the Second Degree. The ruling highlights the importance of accurate jury instructions in criminal cases.
The case, filed under docket number CAAP-25-0000133, stemmed from an incident that occurred on November 23, 2022. Akau was accused of robbing Steven Andrews outside a 7-Eleven store in Honolulu. The court's decision to vacate the conviction emphasizes the necessity for juries to receive clear and complete instructions regarding the law.
In the original trial, Akau was found guilty of Robbery in the Second Degree after a jury trial held on August 24-25, 2023. During the trial, Andrews testified that Akau grabbed his belongings, leading to a physical struggle between the two men. Although Andrews managed to retrieve some of his items, he noted that some money was missing. The Honolulu Police Department responded to the scene, but the surveillance footage did not conclusively show whether Akau took Andrews's belongings.
Akau claimed he was panhandling and denied taking anything from Andrews. The Circuit Court, presided over by Judge James S. Kawashima, instructed the jury on the elements of Robbery in the Second Degree but failed to provide the statutory definition of theft. This omission became a central issue in Akau's appeal.
On appeal, Akau raised several challenges, including the jury instructions and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The court ruled that the jury instructions were erroneous, particularly because the jury was not informed of the necessary intent required for the charge of robbery. The court noted, "The Circuit Court instructed the jury as to Robbery in the Second Degree without providing the definition of 'theft.'" This lack of clarity could have misled the jury regarding the intent required for a conviction.
The court emphasized that without the definition of theft, the jury might have believed that Akau could be guilty of robbery simply because he caused Andrews to abandon his property during their fight, regardless of his intent to deprive Andrews of his belongings. The court stated, "It is unclear whether the jury understood that Akau had to have the 'intent to deprive' Andrews of his property during the fight."
As a result, the court found that the erroneous jury instructions were presumptively harmful, and there was a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to Akau's conviction. Consequently, the court vacated the Circuit Court's December 12, 2023 judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order.
This ruling has significant implications for Akau, who is now given another chance to contest the charges against him. It also serves as a reminder of the critical role jury instructions play in ensuring fair trials. Jurors must understand the legal definitions and standards they are required to apply when making their decisions.
Moving forward, the case may set a precedent regarding the necessity of clear jury instructions in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving theft and robbery. The decision reinforces the idea that defendants are entitled to a fair trial, which includes accurate guidance for jurors.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the prosecution will seek to retry Akau on the robbery charge or if they will pursue a different course of action. Akau's legal team may also explore other avenues for defense in light of the appellate court's findings. The potential for an appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court is also a possibility, depending on the subsequent proceedings in the lower court.