ICA affirms conviction for second degree robbery

On June 14, 2011, the Hawaii ICA issued its opinion in State v. Crabbe, No. 30353 (Summary Disposition Order- Unpublished, panel: Foley (presiding), Ginoza and Reifurth). This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Hon. Dexter D. Del Rosario, presiding. Defendant-Appellant was represented by Anosh H. Yaqoob, Esq., and the State-Appellee was represented by Brian R. Vincent, Esq.

In Crabbe, the Defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree, and raised several issues on appeal.

First, Defendant argued that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft in the fourth degree. The ICA disagreed, noting that even if the Court had erred in not giving this instruction, such an error was harmless as “the jury convicted Crabbe of the charged offense of Robbery in the Second Degree.”

Next, Defendant alleged that the trial judge erred in refusing to continue the trial to allow Defense counsel to interview a prosecution witness and by denying Defendant’s request for a new trial. In rejecting this argument, the ICA noted that “Crabbe had made no attempt to contact the prosecution witness prior to trial, refused the court’s offer of a recess to allow defense counsel to speak with the witness, was able to cross-examine the witness at trial, and fails to show how interviewing the witness prior to trial would have aided his defense. Assuming arguendo there was error, it was harmless.” The conviction was affirmed.