## Facts

- A Honolulu police officer stopped a speeding motorist on the H-2 freeway; a van driven by Robert DeCastro stopped several car lengths behind the patrol car.
- DeCastro stated he stopped to record license plate information after observing what he believed was reckless police driving.
- The officer approached the van, took DeCastro’s license and registration, and directed him to wait in the van while the officer returned to his patrol car.
- DeCastro called 911, complained of harassment, and asked whether he could leave; the operator told him he “could leave” and to call back after arriving at his warehouse.
- DeCastro drove away despite the officer’s instruction to remain.
- The officer pursued DeCastro with emergency lights and siren; other police vehicles joined.
- DeCastro eventually stopped and was arrested and charged with resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle under HRS § 710-1027(1).
- After a bench trial, the district court found DeCastro guilty and sentenced him to probation and a monetary assessment; execution was stayed pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether DeCastro was entitled to a mistake-of-law defense under HRS § 702-220 based on his reliance on a 911 operator’s statement that he could leave.
2. Whether DeCastro’s conduct was justified under the choice-of-evils defense in HRS § 703-302 based on an asserted need to avoid imminent harm.
3. Whether the evidence supported the finding that DeCastro intentionally failed to obey a peace officer’s direction to stop his vehicle under HRS § 710-1027(1).

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the mistake-of-law defense was unavailable because a 911 operator was not authorized to issue an official statement of law permitting disregard of a police order.
- The court held the choice-of-evils defense failed because the circumstances did not present imminent harm and DeCastro had reasonable, lawful alternatives.
- The court concluded the trial court did not err in finding DeCastro intentionally failed to obey the officer’s direction to stop.

## Legal Principles

- A mistake-of-law defense under HRS § 702-220 requires reasonable reliance on an official statement of law by an authorized public officer or body (or comparable official legal source); informal advice from a 911 operator is insufficient.
- A reasonable person standard applies to whether reliance and claimed legal permission were reasonable under the circumstances, including the presence of a clear police command and retention of the driver’s license and registration.
- The choice-of-evils defense under HRS § 703-302 requires a belief in necessity to avoid imminent harm, proportionality between harms avoided and harms caused, and absence of reasonable lawful alternatives.
- Perceived harassment or hostility, without an immediate threat of serious harm and without exhausting non-criminal options (e.g., remaining secured and continuing to contact authorities), does not satisfy necessity or imminence.
- Under HRS § 710-1027(1), intentionally continuing to drive after a peace officer signals a stop (including lights and siren) supports conviction for resisting an order to stop.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed DeCastro’s conviction for resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle, holding that reliance on a 911 operator’s informal assurance did not establish a statutory mistake-of-law defense and that the asserted fear of an officer’s conduct did not justify flight under the choice-of-evils defense where no imminent harm existed and lawful alternatives were available.


State v. DeCastro, 81 Haw. 147, 913 P.2d 558 (Haw. Ct. App. 1996)