Guity v. State: Legal Impossibility Meets HRS § 661B’s “Actual Innocence” Standard; Procedural Vacaturs Do Not

Guity v. State: Legal Impossibility Meets HRS § 661B’s “Actual Innocence” Standard; Procedural Vacaturs Do Not

Introduction

In this Summary Disposition Order, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) partial reinstatement of Walter N. Guity’s wrongful-conviction compensation petition under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 661B. The decision applies the Court’s recent precedential ruling in Jardine v. State, 155 Hawaiʻi 60, 556 P.3d 406 (2024), to clarify what it means to plead “actual innocence” under HRS § 661B-1(b)(1).

The case arises from a global plea agreement covering two separate sexual-assault prosecutions: a family court case (third-degree sexual assault with the complainant as Guity’s spouse) and a circuit court case (second-degree sexual assault with a different complainant). Both convictions were later vacated on appeal; both criminal cases were eventually dismissed. Guity then sought civil redress under HRS chapter 661B for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. The trial court dismissed his petition in its entirety for failing to meet the statute’s “actual innocence” pleading requirement. The ICA reversed in part, holding that one conviction satisfied the statute but the other did not. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court now affirms the ICA.

Core holding: When a conviction is vacated because the offense was legally impossible (here, due to a statutory spousal exclusion in the charged offense), the vacatur can satisfy HRS § 661B-1(b)(1)’s “actual innocence” requirement—even if the decision does not use the words “actual innocence.” By contrast, vacaturs grounded in procedural or technical reasons (e.g., plea-withdrawal error, indictment defects, or witness unavailability) do not qualify.

Summary of the Opinion

  • The Court relies on Jardine v. State to interpret HRS § 661B-1(b)(1)’s requirement that a conviction be “reversed or vacated because the petitioner was actually innocent … and the court decision so states.”
  • The Court confirms that a decision need not contain the words “actual innocence.” It is sufficient that the decision necessarily establishes innocence (by implication or by the substantive reason for vacatur).
  • Applying this rule:
    • Family court case: Guity’s third-degree sexual assault conviction against his spouse was vacated because the offense was legally impossible at the time (the statute explicitly excluded spousal conduct). This satisfies the “actual innocence” pleading requirement.
    • Circuit court case: The second-degree sexual assault conviction was vacated because the trial court erroneously denied plea withdrawal; the post-remand dismissal rested on indictment defects and the State’s inability to contact the complainant. Those are procedural/technical grounds, not adjudications of innocence. The petition fails as to this conviction.
  • The Court also liberally construes Guity’s imperfect pro se application under HRAP Rule 40.1, permitting merits review in the interest of access to justice.
  • Result: ICA judgment affirmed; case remanded for further proceedings limited to the family court conviction claim.

Analysis

Statutory Framework: HRS § 661B-1(b)(1)

HRS § 661B-1(b)(1) requires a civil petitioner seeking wrongful-conviction compensation to allege, among other elements, that:

  • They were convicted and imprisoned; and
  • The judgment “was reversed or vacated because the petitioner was actually innocent …, and the court decision so states.”

The interpretive questions are: Must the vacatur order explicitly say “actually innocent”? And what kinds of vacaturs count—substantive exoneration, procedural defects, or both?

Precedents Cited and Their Roles

  • State v. Guity (Guity I), 2016 WL 6427681 (Haw. App. Oct. 31, 2016) (mem. op.):
    • Identified a fundamental legal impossibility in the family court case: third-degree sexual assault then excluded spousal conduct by statute (HRS § 707-732(1)(f) and § 707-700 (Supp. 2009)).
    • Concluded there was no factual or legal basis for the plea/conviction.
  • State v. Guity (Guity II), 144 Hawaiʻi 557, 445 P.3d 138 (2019):
    • Held the circuit court should have allowed Guity to withdraw his guilty plea in the family court case because it knew the offense was legally impossible.
    • Because the pleas were part of a single global agreement, Guity could withdraw the circuit court plea as well.
    • Both criminal cases were remanded; by then Guity had served his concurrent sentences; both cases were later dismissed.
  • Guity v. State (Guity III), 153 Hawaiʻi 368, 538 P.3d 780 (App. 2023):
    • Interpreted HRS § 661B-1(b)(1) and held that “actual innocence” need not be literally stated in the vacatur order if the decision necessarily establishes innocence.
    • Applied that rule to conclude the family court vacatur satisfied the statute (legal impossibility), but the circuit court vacatur did not (procedural reasons).
  • Jardine v. State, 155 Hawaiʻi 60, 556 P.3d 406 (2024):
    • Supreme Court expressly approved Guity III’s approach: the words “actual innocence” are not required if the decision effectively states it.
    • Clarified that under § 661B-1, the vacatur must be based on innocence (e.g., evidence or circumstances demonstrating the person did not commit the crime), not on technical or procedural grounds.
  • Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 465 P.3d 815 (2020), and related cases:
    • Reaffirm the Court’s practice of liberally construing pro se filings and facilitating merits review where possible. Here, the Court overlooked technical defects in Guity’s certiorari application under HRAP Rule 40.1(d).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is straightforward and anchored in Jardine:

  • No “magic words” requirement. A vacatur order or appellate decision need not literally declare a petitioner “actually innocent.” It suffices if, read fairly, the decision necessarily establishes innocence—thus satisfying the statutory directive that “the court decision so states.”
  • Substance over form: innocence versus procedure. Compensation under § 661B is reserved for those whose convictions were reversed or vacated because they did not commit the crime (or could not have committed it), as opposed to those whose convictions were undone for non-merits reasons (e.g., plea colloquy error, indictment defects, limitations issues, or witness unavailability).
  • Applying the rule to each conviction separately:
    • Family court case (third-degree sexual assault): The statutory definition in effect at the time excluded spousal conduct. Because the complaining witness was Guity’s spouse, commission of that offense was legally impossible. The appellate decisions recognized the legal and factual impossibility of the plea. This necessarily establishes actual innocence as to that charge.
    • Circuit court case (second-degree sexual assault): The conviction was vacated because the court improperly denied plea withdrawal; the subsequent dismissal with prejudice rested on indictment defects and lack of contact with the complainant. These are procedural/technical dispositions, not determinations that Guity did not commit the offense, and thus do not meet § 661B-1(b)(1).
  • Global plea agreements and § 661B. While a global plea can cause multiple convictions to be vacated when one component fails, § 661B’s compensation gateway turns on why each conviction was vacated. A global linkage sufficient to undo a plea may be insufficient to show “actual innocence” for every count for compensation purposes.

Impact and Implications

This decision, reading Jardine into a two-conviction fact pattern, has several practical and doctrinal effects:

  • Operational guidance for § 661B pleadings. Petitioners can meet the statute’s “so states” clause without an express “actually innocent” label if the vacatur decision necessarily establishes innocence—such as legal impossibility or a conclusive exoneration on the facts.
  • Filter against purely procedural reversals. Vacaturs for technical reasons (e.g., plea errors, indictment flaws, jurisdictional defects, discovery violations without an innocence finding, or witness unavailability) will not, without more, open the door to § 661B compensation.
  • Use of prior appellate language. Language in earlier appellate decisions like “no factual basis” or “legally impossible,” when rooted in statutory elements and undisputed facts, may suffice at the pleading (and even summary judgment) stages to establish § 661B eligibility.
  • Count-by-count analysis. Even when sentences are concurrent or pleas are global, each conviction must independently satisfy the actual-innocence gateway. Petitioners should frame their claims separately and tether each to the specific vacatur rationale.
  • Pro se access to justice reinforced. The Court’s willingness to reach the merits despite a technically noncompliant certiorari application underscores continued sensitivity to barriers facing unrepresented litigants.
  • Strategic options for petitioners. Where a vacatur rests on procedural grounds, a petitioner may need:
    • A subsequent pardon expressly grounded in actual innocence (see § 661B-1(b)(2)); or
    • An innocence-based judicial determination (e.g., a post-conviction order or findings that the petitioner did not commit the offense), which the vacatur “so states” or necessarily implies.
  • Notwithstanding nonpublication, binding principles flow from Jardine. Although this order is marked “not for publication,” it applies the binding rule from Jardine; lower courts should follow the Jardine standard while using Guity as a concrete example.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Actual innocence (in § 661B): Not just “not proven guilty.” Rather, the conviction must have been reversed or vacated because the petitioner did not commit the crime (or could not have). The court’s decision must either say this explicitly or necessarily imply it.
  • Legal impossibility: A situation where, even if the alleged conduct occurred, it does not constitute the charged crime under the statute’s elements. Here, third-degree sexual assault excluded spousal conduct at the time; thus, the charge was legally impossible as applied to the marital relationship.
  • Procedural or technical vacatur: Reversals unrelated to innocence (e.g., trial error, invalid indictment, plea colloquy defects, statute-of-limitations issues, or missing witness). These do not satisfy § 661B’s “actual innocence” gate.
  • Global plea agreement: A single plea covering multiple cases or counts. If part of a global plea fails, courts may allow withdrawal of the whole agreement. But for compensation, each conviction must independently meet the innocence standard.
  • “Court decision so states” without magic words: The vacatur order need not say “actually innocent” verbatim. It can “so state” by necessary implication—e.g., by concluding the offense could not have been committed under the statute’s terms or by expressly finding the defendant did not commit the acts.
  • Dismissal with prejudice: A case-ending dismissal preventing refile. While it terminates prosecution, it does not, by itself, equate to a determination of innocence unless the dismissal grounds reflect innocence.
  • Summary Disposition Order (SDO): A brief appellate order resolving a case without a full published opinion. Though this SDO is marked not for publication, it applies binding law from Jardine.

Key Takeaways

  • Under Jardine, “actual innocence” for § 661B is a substantive threshold: vacatur must be grounded in innocence, not mere procedure.
  • Courts will look to the reasoning of the vacatur decision; explicit magic words are unnecessary if the decision necessarily establishes innocence.
  • Legal impossibility—where statutory elements cannot be met on undisputed facts—qualifies as “actual innocence.”
  • Procedural vacaturs and prosecutorial dismissals (e.g., due to indictment defects or unavailability of a complainant) generally will not suffice absent a judicial statement or necessary implication of innocence.
  • Claims must be parsed conviction-by-conviction; a global plea’s unraveling does not automatically carry actual-innocence consequences for every count.
  • Hawaiʻi’s appellate courts continue to construe pro se filings liberally to facilitate access to justice.

Conclusion

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s decision in Guity v. State operationalizes Jardine’s interpretation of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1). It confirms two practical rules: first, that courts will credit decisions whose reasoning necessarily establishes innocence even without explicit “actual innocence” language; and second, that vacaturs grounded in procedural or technical defects are not enough to unlock wrongful-conviction compensation. In doing so, the Court provides clear guidance for petitioners and lower courts: tie the vacatur to innocence—via legal impossibility or substantive exoneration—or the § 661B claim will fail. The ruling thus sharpens the boundary between exoneration-based relief and relief based on trial or charging error, ensuring that Hawaiʻi’s compensation statute remains focused on those whose convictions were undone because they did not commit the crimes of conviction.

Case: Guity v. State, SCWC-21-0000531, Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi (Mar. 31, 2025) — Summary Disposition Order affirming ICA’s partial reversal and remanding for proceedings limited to the family court conviction under HRS ch. 661B.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Comments