Jury to decide standoff case

KEALAKEKUA — Jury deliberations are underway in the case of a Kapaau man accused of shooting his girlfriend and a police officer before a nearly 20-hour standoff ensued in 2015.

The 12 jurors, which includes eight men and four women, got the case about 10:30 a.m. Wednesday after Macdon Thromman’s attorney, Terri Fujioka-Lilley, wrapped up her closing arguments and prosecutors completed their rebuttal. A verdict wasn’t reached and jurors will resume deliberations today.

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 13-14, 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, and at other officers as they surrounded his home during the standoff.

He 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. Some of the charges include lesser offenses and some are merged.

On Wednesday, Fujioka-Lilley continued to go through the charges and jury instructions, explaining what needs to be proven by prosecutors to find her client guilty. She also highlighted instances where prosecutors failed to prove their case and where the defense believes reasonable doubt exists.

For example, for the first-degree attempted murder charge filed against Thromman for allegedly shooting officer Ray Fukada in the right forearm, the state did not prove, she said, that her client knew Fukada and fellow officer Dale Ku were in fact police as only Fukada testified he yelled “police, police” when approaching the home. She also argued that the shot that hit Fukada was a warning shot to get people on his property to leave and that it ricocheted off the ground and hit Fukada, resulting in what should be an assault charge, not an attempted murder charge. Coito’s mother testified she saw “fire” go down toward the ground when the shot was fired, Fujioka-Lilley added.

“How did the bullet hit the bottom of officer Fukada’s right forearm? How could that injury result in a straight shot from the porch up and above and to the left? It couldn’t,” she said. “It could happen from ricochet.”

Fujioka-Lilley also urged jurors to consider biases in the case, noting prosecutor’s “subtle and not-so-subtle” points that the victim and her family were protecting Thromman by not cooperating “with police and prosecutors to the degree that the prosecution team would like.” She acknowledged the family may have failed to do that, but also said each member testified about why they felt let down and how they “were made to feel that what happened to Heather was a secondary matter as soon as a police officer got injured.”

“Do Heather and her family still have some resentment about that? Sure they do, and you heard that in their testimony. But so do the police — each of those officers, detectives and sergeants that were called out that night, they were told they were responding to an incident that involved the shooting of a fellow police officer. Now, did that actually effect how they did their jobs?” Fujioka-Lilley said, going on to question if the investigation was thorough and fair and how officers responded to witnesses that seemed unhelpful in helping “prosecute the man who had hurt one of their fellow officers.”

Fujioka-Lilley further told jurors her client was under extreme mental or emotional duress at the time of the alleged crimes. EMED is an affirmative defense that can mitigate the legal consequences of a defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. In this case, attempted manslaughter charges are included in each of the merged attempted murder charges that would allow jurors to convict Thromman of the lesser offense if it’s determined he suffered from EMED.

“Everything fell apart on the evening of July 13, 2015, Macy reached out to try to fix things and was not only rejected, but told that the mother of his children had moved on to someone else,” Fujioka-Lilley said, adding that while Heather said it had been over for a while her family did not know that and neither did Thromman, until that night. “Then he saw his family falling apart forever — he lost it. Now, that’s not an excuse, it’s just part of the facts to be conspired in determining which offenses he committed and which he did not.”

In the prosecution’s rebuttal, Kauanoe Jackson refuted Fujioka-Lilley’s statements during closing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday, also pointing out that Fujioka-Lilley’s statements during closing arguments included “ifs” and “could haves,” essentially asking jurors to speculate. Reasonable doubt does not include speculation, she said.

She also explained how Thromman’s actions were deliberate and intentional and iterated for a second day that his actions were follow-through on his statements and that evidence did not support the EMED defense for the attempted murder charges.

“The defendant argues that he was under so much emotion but the evidence doesn’t support that,” she said. “Emotional distress requires the defendant’s emotion — not just frustration or anger — it must override, it must be filled with such passion that he cannot control his actions. But, control and deliberation is all we saw.”