Background
A Maui Circuit Court jury convicted Curtis Ryan Bekkum of two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. The circuit court entered judgment and imposed probation on November 3, 2022.
Bekkum appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions based on a challenge to the charging complaint, but the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reversed that ruling and remanded for consideration of Bekkum’s remaining appellate arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The court vacated Bekkum’s convictions because the prosecutor’s closing request that jurors “take a stand with” the complaining witness improperly appealed to emotion and invited a verdict based on considerations other than the evidence. The remark was improper even though defense counsel did not object.
The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. No curative instruction was given, and the case depended on the complaining witness’s testimony. The court otherwise rejected Bekkum’s hearsay, victim-impact, ineffective-assistance, and new-trial arguments, including claims concerning text and Facebook messages, an uncalled character witness, and purportedly newly discovered testimony from his daughter.
Key Takeaways
- A prosecutor may not urge jurors to “take a stand with” a complaining witness.
- An unobjected-to improper closing argument can require reversal when it may have affected the verdict.
- Where the case turns on witness credibility and no curative instruction is given, an emotional appeal in closing may be prejudicial.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that prosecutors must tie closing arguments to the evidence and may not ask jurors to align themselves with a victim or complainant. In a credibility-driven trial, even a brief improper appeal can undermine confidence in the verdict.