The Hawaii Paroling Authority recently denied parole for Kevin C. Metcalfe, who was convicted in March 2010 of manslaughter in the May 2009 shooting death of a Milolii man.
Metcalfe went before the authority for a parole hearing Dec. 20, said Tommy Johnson, Department of Public Safety Paroles and Pardons administrator. The board opted to deny parole at the time noting it wanted Metcalfe to consider a work furlough program, such as Hawaii Community Correctional Center’s Hale Nani program, if he qualifies, before it reconsiders granting parole.
Metcalfe’s next hearing before the Hawaii Paroling Authority is slated for September 2014, Johnson said. However, if Metcalfe enters a work furlough program, he could apply for an earlier parole hearing.
Metcalfe remains incarcerated at Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona. His scheduled release date is Feb. 3, 2030, according to the state Department of Public Safety.
A Hilo Circuit Court jury March 12, 2010, found Metcalfe guilty of manslaughter and use of a firearm in the commission of a separate felony stemming from the May 6, 2009, shooting death of Larry Kuahuia. Metcalfe was sentenced to two concurrent 20-year terms, with credit for time served.
Metcalfe was initially charged with second-degree murder, however, the jury returned a manslaughter verdict, as it believed Metcalfe had acted recklessly, not intentionally, when he shot and killed 44-year-old Larry Kuahuia, who police said was attempting to steal marijuana from Metcalfe’s yard.
He subsequently filed an appeal in May, which was upheld by the state Intermediate Court of Appeals in April 2012.
Metcalfe’s attorney appealed allowing the testimony from Hawaii County Police Department Detective Walter Ah Mow and Maui pathologist Anthony Manoukian on the grounds that neither was qualified as an expert witness, that the jury received incorrect instructions, and the 3rd Circuit Court judge failed to inform the jury that there was “nothing criminal or wrong with the possession and use of medical marijuana.”
He also claimed that his trial attorneys William Reece and Vaughan Winborne Jr. were ineffective and that there was insufficient evidence a shotgun is a firearm as defined by law because “no witness testified that the shotgun was a ‘firearm … for which the operative force is an explosive.’”
The court dismissed all the arguments.