## Facts

- Marcelino Realina was charged and convicted in district court of terroristic threatening under HRS § 707-715(a) and sentenced to 30 days’ confinement.
- Steve Hardisty had previously warned Realina to stay away and later twice telephoned threatening to kill him; Realina reported the threats to police.
- On December 8, 1977, Hardisty saw Realina driving in Hilo, believed Realina was going to visit Hardisty’s wife, and followed him.
- Realina drove to the Hilo police station parking lot; Hardisty approached Realina’s car, repeatedly threatened to kill him, and demanded he get out.
- After Realina started his engine to leave, Hardisty reached into the car and grabbed Realina by the shirt to prevent him from departing, then released him.
- Realina searched in the car, took a cane knife, exited, and ran after Hardisty, who fled toward the police station building.
- Hardisty entered the station and reported he was being chased by a man trying to kill him; an officer saw Realina running toward the station holding the cane knife up.
- When ordered by police to drop the knife, Realina immediately complied.

## Issues

1. Whether there was substantial evidence that Realina, by pursuing Hardisty with a cane knife, committed terroristic threatening under HRS § 707-715(a) by intending to terrorize Hardisty or acting in reckless disregard of causing terror.
2. Whether the evidence fairly raised justification (self-defense) such that the State was required, but failed, to present substantial evidence negating justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi reversed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt when the record was evaluated together with the applicable justification statutes.
- The case was remanded for disposition consistent with reversal.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the court considers whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense and of the absence of any defense fairly raised by the evidence.
- Under HRS § 707-715(a), a “threat” may be communicated by words or conduct, but the State must still prove the required mental state (intent to terrorize or reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror).
- When evidence of self-defense is fairly raised, the prosecution must present substantial evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was not justified.
- Context matters in assessing both intent and justification, including who initiated the confrontation, whether the defendant sought to avoid the encounter, and whether the defendant’s actions were reasonably responsive to an imminent threat.

## Conclusion

Because Hardisty initiated the confrontation with repeated death threats and physical restraint and Realina had gone to the police station and attempted to leave before arming himself, the record did not contain substantial evidence that Realina committed unprivileged terroristic threatening or that the State negated self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; the conviction was reversed.


State v. Realina, 616 P.2d 229 (Haw. Ct. App. 1980)