## Facts

- Isidro Rivera was tried in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Kauaʻi) and convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree kidnapping and one count of first-degree rape.
- The rape conviction was under HRS § 707-730 (1976), which was written in gendered terms, treating only males as perpetrators and females as victims.
- After Rivera’s conviction, the legislature amended the rape statute effective June 26, 1979 to restate it in gender-neutral terms and stated the amendment was not intended to affect cases pending on appeal.
- Rivera appealed, arguing the rape statute was unconstitutional, the trial court improperly excluded character evidence, the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether HRS § 707-730 (1976), a sex-based rape statute, violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Hawaii Constitution’s equal-protection provision, or the Hawaii Equal Rights Amendment.
2. Whether the trial court erroneously excluded defense character evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Rivera’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence.
4. Whether Rivera was denied effective assistance of counsel.

## Decision

- The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed Rivera’s convictions for first-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping.
- The court held the pre-1979 gender-specific rape statute was constitutional under federal and state equal-protection provisions and the Hawaii Equal Rights Amendment.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered character evidence.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; denial of judgment of acquittal was proper.
- The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because the record did not show deficient performance that denied Rivera a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- Sex-based classifications are evaluated under intermediate scrutiny: they must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to achieving those objectives.
- A gender-specific criminal statute may survive equal-protection review where the classification is justified by demonstrable, relevant differences and is substantially related to an important protective purpose.
- The Hawaii Equal Rights Amendment does not categorically forbid sex-based classifications; it bars unjustified, invidious discrimination.
- Character evidence offered by a defendant is subject to foundational and relevance requirements, and trial courts have discretion to admit or exclude it.
- On a motion for judgment of acquittal, the reviewing court considers whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, substantial evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Ineffective assistance requires a showing of deficient performance that deprived the defendant of a fair trial; generalized complaints without record support do not warrant relief.

## Conclusion

The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed Rivera’s rape and kidnapping convictions, holding that the pre-amendment gender-specific rape statute satisfied intermediate scrutiny and did not violate the Hawaii Equal Rights Amendment, and further ruling that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the denial of acquittal, and counsel’s performance provided no basis for reversal.


State v. Rivera, 612 P.2d 526 (Haw. 1980)