KEALAKEKUA — Lawyers prosecuting and defending Macdon Thromman in the attempted murder of his girlfriend and a police officer in 2015 made their closing arguments on Tuesday. ADVERTISING KEALAKEKUA — Lawyers prosecuting and defending Macdon Thromman in the attempted murder
KEALAKEKUA — Lawyers prosecuting and defending Macdon Thromman in the attempted murder of his girlfriend and a police officer in 2015 made their closing arguments on Tuesday.
Thromman’s attorney, Terri Fujioka-Lilley, will finish presenting her closing arguments this morning when court resumes after 3rd Circuit Court Judge Ronald Ibarra recessed the jury for the day on Tuesday. Once both sides have completed their arguments, it will be up to that jury, which comprises eight men and four women, to decide Thromman’s guilt or innocence. The jurors have listened to the evidence since the trial began in mid-January before 3rd Circuit Court Judge Ronald Ibarra in Kealakekua.
Thromman, 39, is accused of firing a .30-30 hunting rifle at his girlfriend, Heather Coito, striking her in the right thigh during the July 13, 2015, incident at a residence off Akoni Pule Highway in Kapaau. He also allegedly shot a responding police officer, identified as Ray Fukada, in the right arm, shortly after he arrived around 8 p.m. before a 20-hour standoff ensued.
Thromman still faces 18 counts in connection with the incident including two counts first-degree attempted murder, three counts second-degree attempted murder, five counts first-degree terroristic threatening, two counts each second-degree assault, and one count each of abuse of a family or household member younger than age 14, kidnapping, first-degree assault, second-degree reckless endangering and failure to have permits to acquire a firearm.
In closing arguments for the prosecution, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Kauanoe Jackson stressed to jurors to consider Thromman’s “deliberate actions” and statements made during the 20 hours spanning July 13-14 as part of their deliberations. She noted that his actions are “always follow-through” on his statements.
“While we can’t get into the minds of someone, we can look to their actions, we get to look to the their statements, we can look to see what is intended from these statements and how they intended to act,” Jackson said. “In this case, the defendant gave us statements. And those statements segued directly into a follow-through action.”
She spent nearly an hour walking the jurors through the incident, connecting the charges and evidence presented during the jury trial to Thromman’s statements and actions that night and day from the start of the domestic incident to hitting and shooting Coito as she held their 6-month-old son and threatening her father to shooting Fukada and the ensuing standoff, during which it is alleged Thromman shot at officers as they worked to bring an end to the incident.
Fujioka-Lilley, in the start of closing arguments for her client on Tuesday afternoon, reminded the jury numerous times that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt or it is the jury’s duty to find Thromman not guilty. She spent about an hour going through some of the charges Wednesday, highlighting where the defense believes reasonable doubt exists.
For example, for the first-degree attempted murder charge against Thromman for allegedly firing a shot at Sgt. Paul Kim, Fujioka-Lilley pointed out that prosecutors failed to prove her client intentionally fired the shot that struck the Bearcat from where Kim was firing oleoresin capsicum canisters; whether Kim was in fact in the turret at the time of the shot; if the damage to the vehicle could have been caused by rocks during the drive from Hilo to the incident; and how Thromman could see to fire the shot with pepper spray powder filling the home, among other issues.
She also argued that when Coito was shot July 13 that Thromman was waving the rifle and not pointing it.
“It doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to shoot her or kill her,” Fujioka-Lilley said.
Fujioka-Lilley also told the jury that prosecutors hadn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt her client owned/registered the rifle.
An attempted first-degree murder conviction carries a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
