## Facts

- A 17-year-old boy lived with his mother and her boyfriend, Alfred J. Roman.
- Roman told the boy to shred lettuce and cheese while Roman ran an errand.
- When Roman returned, the boy either had not prepared the food or Roman was dissatisfied with what had been done.
- Roman confronted the boy, who was lying on the floor listening to his Walkman and ignoring Roman.
- Roman kicked the boy on the rear end.
- The boy stood up defiantly with a raised fist and glared at Roman.
- Roman interpreted the boy’s conduct as disobedience and challenged the boy to hit him.
- Roman slapped and kicked the boy.
- When the boy’s mother intervened, Roman hit her.
- Roman called the police to report that he had struck the boy and the mother.
- A responding officer testified that the boy’s cheek was swollen and his back was sore, but he did not need medical attention.
- Roman was charged with abuse of a family or household member (HRS § 709-906(1)) and tried in a one-day bench trial.
- At trial, Roman relied on self-defense and the parental discipline justification (HRS § 703-309(1)).
- The family court found Roman’s conduct was a reaction to the boy’s defiance but ruled the parental discipline justification did not apply and found Roman guilty.
- On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals agreed the family court erred about the defense’s availability but affirmed on harmless-error grounds; the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court erred by categorically refusing to apply the parental discipline justification under HRS § 703-309(1) to Roman’s use of force.
2. Whether the ICA could affirm the conviction as harmless error by concluding, from the cold record, that the State disproved the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held the family court erred by ruling, as a matter of law, that the parental discipline justification was inapplicable once there was some evidence placing the justification in issue.
- The court held the ICA erred in treating that refusal as harmless, because the bench-trial fact-finding occurred under an incorrect legal framework and burden allocation.
- The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and reversed the family court’s judgment of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRS § 703-309(1), force used on a minor may be justified when used by a parent, guardian, or other person similarly responsible for the minor’s general care and supervision, for a welfare-related disciplinary purpose, and when the force is not intended or known to create a substantial risk of death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, mental distress, or gross degradation.
- A justification is “in issue” when there is some supporting evidence, even if weak or contested; once in issue, the prosecution must disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A trial court commits legal error when it bypasses the statutory justification analysis and instead treats the conduct as criminal without applying the elements and limitations of the justification.
- In a bench trial, when the judge refuses to consider a justification that is in issue, the error affects the fact-finding process; an appellate court generally may not cure the defect by reweighing the evidence and declaring the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because there was evidence that Roman used force in response to the minor’s misconduct, the parental discipline justification was in issue and had to be evaluated under HRS § 703-309(1) with the State bearing the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; the family court’s categorical refusal to apply that framework could not be treated as harmless on appeal, so the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s affirmance and reversed the conviction.


State v. Roman, 199 P.3d 57 (2008)