The Hawaii Supreme Court has reinstated the sexual assault convictions of Curtis Ryan Bekkum, reversing a lower court's decision that had found the charges against him to be defective. This ruling, issued on August 7, 2026, clarifies the legal standards for challenging the sufficiency of criminal charges, particularly when such challenges are raised for the first time on appeal.
Bekkum was convicted by a jury on two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree for engaging in sexual contact by "compulsion" with a complaining witness (CW) who did not consent. The case, identified by docket number SCWC-22-0000698, highlights the complexities of legal definitions and the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings.
Background
The dispute began when the State of Hawaii charged Bekkum with two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-733. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred in September 2017, where Bekkum allegedly engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the CW, who had sought medical assistance from him due to a back condition.
The CW testified that Bekkum, a physician and friend of a former state senator, administered cortisone shots to her and later offered to perform a more invasive procedure at her home. During this visit, Bekkum allegedly touched her inappropriately, leading to the charges. After a jury trial, Bekkum was found guilty and sentenced to one year of probation and thirty days in prison for each count, to run concurrently.
However, during his appeal, Bekkum argued that the charges were fatally defective because they did not include the statutory definition of "compulsion" as outlined in HRS § 707-700. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) agreed, stating that the omission failed to provide Bekkum with fair notice of the charges, and subsequently vacated his convictions.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the ICA had erred in its judgment. The court clarified that when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of charges for the first time on appeal, the charges are presumed valid unless the defendant can demonstrate either that the charges cannot reasonably be construed to allege a crime or that the defendant was prejudiced by the omission.
The court stated, "Here, the charges against Bekkum contained all required elements and Bekkum was not prejudiced as he knew that the State’s theory of compulsion was based on a lack of consent."
Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, along with Justices Sabrina McKenna, Todd Eddins, Lisa Ginoza, and Clarissa Malinao, participated in the ruling. The court emphasized that the statutory definition of compulsion did not create an additional element that needed to be included in the complaint. Instead, the charges already encompassed the necessary elements of the offense.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future criminal cases in Hawaii. It clarifies the standards for challenging the validity of charges, particularly for defendants who raise such challenges after a conviction. The court's decision reinforces the principle that charges are presumed valid unless a defendant can show specific prejudice or a failure to allege a crime.
The ruling may also impact how prosecutors draft charges in sexual assault cases, ensuring that they are clear and comprehensive while also adhering to statutory definitions. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of defendants being aware of the charges against them and the legal theories underpinning those charges.
What’s Next
The case is now remanded to the ICA to address Bekkum’s remaining points of error on appeal. While Bekkum's convictions have been reinstated, he may still pursue further legal avenues, including potential appeals on other grounds. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.