Man convicted of felony assault in the first-degree has judgment vacated
WAILUKU – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated a conviction judgment on Aug. 23, 2024, handed down from Second Circuit Court to Charles Koutsoubinas for the charge of felony assault in the first-degree that stemmed from an Oct. 30, 2018, incident that occurred in Maui County.
The sentence from the Second Circuit Court carried with it four years of probation, one year of incarceration, and a $33,080 fine for victim restitution. Koutsoubinas was given credit for time served from Sept. 5, 2019, through Oct. 2, 2019.
The guilty verdict for felony assault in the first-degree was reached in the Second Circuit case on June, 9, 2023. On June 20, 2023, a motion for a mistrial was filed on behalf of Koutsoubinas and was denied by the Second Circuit Court on June 22, 2023. On July 18, 2023, a second order was denied for a mistrial by the Second Circuit Court. Koutsoubinas filed an appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals on July, 19, 2023.
Koutsoubinas focused on nine points within his appeal, according to court documents. Koutsoubinas main point raised was that the jury instruction was wrong, and contributed to his conviction.
“Koutsoubinas contends the instruction on deadly force wrongly included the word ‘immediately’ In a conclusory fashion, Koutsoubinas claims he was prejudiced,” the Intermediate Court of Appealing decision reads.
Ultimately, the Intermediate Court of Appeals found, “Because the jury instruction in this case required that the use of deadly force be “immediately necessary” as opposed to “necessary,” the instruction did not accurately reflect the law. Thus, the instruction was wrong and presumptively harmful.”
The Intermediate Court of Appeals added, the jury convicted Koutsoubinas of Assault in the Second Degree despite his testimony indicating he saw (CW) throw Koutsoubinas’ girlfriend to the ground and then run towards him. One reasonable inference is that the jury did not find Koutsoubinas’ testimony credible as to the reason he believed the use of deadly force was immediately necessary. We cannot say that absent the erroneous instruction, the jury would have still found Koutsoubinas was not justified in using deadly force. Thus, there was a reasonable possibility the erroneous instruction may have contributed to Koutsoubinas’ conviction.