Background
Justin Joshua Serrano Eugenio was charged with Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a Minor under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 712-1209.1(1)(a) following an undercover sting operation conducted jointly by the Maui Police Department, the Honolulu Police Department, and state and federal agencies. A detective created an online persona of a female prostitute, initially listing her age as 19 and using photos of an adult woman. The detective subsequently told Eugenio on three separate occasions that the persona was 16 years old. Upon learning the stated age, Eugenio asked for a price reduction and separately expressed concern about getting arrested. A jury convicted him after a January 2024 trial in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
Eugenio appealed the May 21, 2024 Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence, raising three claims of instructional error: (1) the trial court should have sua sponte given a mistake-of-fact instruction; (2) the standard entrapment instruction, HAWJIC 7.08, inadequately conveyed the objective standard for entrapment; and (3) the court erred in declining to give HAWJIC 7.09, which addresses the entrapment theory based on law enforcement’s false representations that conduct is lawful.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on all three grounds. On the mistake-of-fact claim, the court held there was no credible evidence supporting the defense because HRS § 712-1209.1(1)(a) criminalizes recklessly offering value to a law enforcement officer who represents themselves as a minor — the statute turns on the officer’s representation of age, not the actual age of any person. The detective’s repeated, explicit statements that the persona was 16, and Eugenio’s own responses acknowledging that representation, foreclosed any reasonable juror from concluding Eugenio was genuinely mistaken. The initial listing of age 19 and use of adult photographs did not negate those subsequent representations.
On the entrapment instructions, the court held that HAWJIC 7.08 tracks HRS § 702-237 nearly verbatim and, consistent with the Hawaii Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Anderson, 58 Haw. 479 (1977), fully comports with the objective standard for entrapment by focusing on police conduct and its probable effect on a reasonable person rather than on the defendant’s subjective state of mind. The court further held that HAWJIC 7.09 — covering the false-representation theory of entrapment — was properly withheld because no evidence showed law enforcement represented that soliciting sex from a minor for value is lawful. Disclosing an initial fictitious adult age does not constitute a false representation that the underlying prohibited conduct is legal.
Key Takeaways
- Under HRS § 712-1209.1(1)(a), criminal liability attaches to recklessly offering value to an officer who represents themselves as a minor; the statute does not require the persona to actually be or appear to be underage, so a mistake-of-fact defense based on the persona’s initial adult presentation is unavailable when the officer later expressly stated a minor age.
- A jury instruction that tracks Hawaii’s entrapment statute (HRS § 702-237) nearly verbatim is legally sufficient; HAWJIC 7.08 adequately conveys the objective standard endorsed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Anderson.
- The false-representation variant of entrapment (HAWJIC 7.09) requires evidence that police falsely told the defendant his conduct was lawful — fabricating biographical details about the undercover persona (such as an initial adult age) does not satisfy that requirement.
- A defendant’s own messages acknowledging a stated minor age and expressing fear of arrest can defeat a mistake-of-fact defense as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad reach of Hawaii’s commercial sexual exploitation statute in sting operations. By centering liability on the officer’s representation of minor status rather than objective indicia of age, the court makes it substantially harder for defendants to claim they were misled by the use of adult photographs or an initial adult age listing in an undercover profile. Defense counsel in similar cases should be aware that once an officer expressly states the persona is a minor and the defendant acknowledges that fact, the evidentiary foundation for a mistake-of-fact instruction is effectively eliminated.
The decision also provides a clear reaffirmation that Hawaii’s standard entrapment instruction meets constitutional and statutory requirements. The ruling signals that courts will not supplement HAWJIC 7.08 with elaborations on the term “inducement” absent a showing that the instruction was affirmatively misleading, and that HAWJIC 7.09’s false-representation theory is narrowly confined to situations where police specifically deceive a defendant about the legality of the charged conduct itself.