Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Hawaii v. Roynes Dural, II
Date: 11-03-2003
Case Number: CR. No. 02-01-2791
Judge: Karen S.S. Ahn
Court: First Circuit Court, Honolulu County, Hawaii
Plaintiff's Attorney: Honolulu Hawaii District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney: Not Available
In July 2001, when the CW was fourteen years old, she was in a romantic relationship with C.K., allegedly told her mother that she was had been in a sexual relationship with Dural for some time. The CW's mother immediately reported the CW's disclosures to the police.
Dural was in the Navy and at sea at the time. He was arrested when the ship returned to port. He was charged with five counts of sexual assault of a minor less than fourteen years old, one count of first-degree sexual assault and fourt counts of third-degree sexual assault.
The CW testified that her sexual relationship with Dural began when she was twelve. She further testified that the last time she had sex with Dural was about the end of June or of July 2001, when she was fourteen years old. The girl was actually in a sexual relationship with C.K.
CW acknowledged that prior to Dural's trial, she did not tell police officers or the prosecution about her relationship with C.K.
C.K. could have been prosecuted for first-degree sexual assault on July 13, 2001, when the CW reported her alleged sexual relationship with Dural to Mother. And regardless of whether the CW's sexual relationship with C.K. began before her fourteenth birthday, the CW plainly had a strong interest in concealing any sexual relationship with C.K. from Mother on July 13, 2001.
C.K. may have, in fact, been having sex with C.W. as early as March 2001.
In August of 2002, Stepfather and Mother had discovered the CW, was in a sexual relationship, C.K. who told Stepfather that his sexual relationship with the CW that had begun on December 31, 2000, which was after the CW turned fourteen.
Stepfather testified that he first noticed something between the CW and C.K. when he observed the CW resting her head in C.K.'s lap in late 2000.
Stepfather stated that he never told the prosecution or its investigators about C.K. having a sexual relationship with the CW.
At the time of trial, CW had a clear motive for and interest in making a false accusation against Dural to conceal her relationship with C.K.
Dural also received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy.
Dural's conviction was affirmed and his first petition for postconviction relief was denied.
On May 1, 2009, Dural filed his second postconviction relief petition. Dural was represented by attorneys through the Hawai'i Innocence Project. In this petition, Dural alleged that C.K., and not Dural, had actually been involved in a sexual relationship with the CW; the accusations against Dural had been fabricated in order to protect this relationship; subsequent statements by Mother, Stepfather, and C.K. himself supported these claims.
According to Dural, prosecutors offered him a deal that would result in parole if he would plead guilty to a lesser charge. He turned the offer down.
On August 20, 2011, C.W.'s mother wrote a letter to the Hawaii Parol Authority stating:
"I had been lied to and lead to believe that Dural was responsible for a sexual relationship with [the CW]. However I now know for a fact, no doubts whatsoever that Roynes Joseph Dural is innocent of all said claims and charges. [The CW] has admitted that it was NOT Dural but [C.K.] that she was having a sexual relationship with. [C.K.] is the person responsible for the sexual crimes against [the CW]. [C.K.] is the one who should be incarcerated and should NOT be working at an elementary school. [C.K.] has admitted to me that he had a sexual relationship with [the CW] while she was a minor and that he told her not to tell anyone. He also admitted to me that they had been having sex for about a year and a half before they got caught. The evidence speaks for itself."
Mother stated that she submitted the letter to the Paroling Authority because she believed that C.K. had sex with the CW while she was thirteen, and Dural did not.
Dural was granted parole on December 1, 2011.
On August 29, 2013, the Circuit Court denied Dural's second Rule 40 petition. The Court found that the testimony of C.W. and the Mother were not false.
On February 27, 2018, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii held that the Circuit Court erred in denying Dural's second Rule 40 petition and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The charges against Dural were dismissed by Judge Karen Nakasone on December 3, 2019.
Dural was incarcerated for 8 years and was on parole for 8 years. Dural was not compensated in any way for the harm suffered by him as a result of having been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
On November 24, 2021, Dural filed a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and County of Honolulu and others but his complaint was dismissed by the court on November 9, 2023.
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Hawaii v. Roynes Dural, II?
The outcome was: Dural was convicted on August 4, 2003 on all counts. The court sentenced him to 20 years in prison on the first-degree count, and to four five-year terms to run concurrently on the other convictions. Dural also received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy. Dural's conviction was affirmed and his first petition for postconviction relief was denied. On May 1, 2009, Dural filed his second postconviction relief petition. Dural was represented by attorneys through the Hawai'i Innocence Project. In this petition, Dural alleged that C.K., and not Dural, had actually been involved in a sexual relationship with the CW; the accusations against Dural had been fabricated in order to protect this relationship; subsequent statements by Mother, Stepfather, and C.K. himself supported these claims. According to Dural, prosecutors offered him a deal that would result in parole if he would plead guilty to a lesser charge. He turned the offer down. On August 20, 2011, C.W.'s mother wrote a letter to the Hawaii Parol Authority stating: "I had been lied to and lead to believe that Dural was responsible for a sexual relationship with [the CW]. However I now know for a fact, no doubts whatsoever that Roynes Joseph Dural is innocent of all said claims and charges. [The CW] has admitted that it was NOT Dural but [C.K.] that she was having a sexual relationship with. [C.K.] is the person responsible for the sexual crimes against [the CW]. [C.K.] is the one who should be incarcerated and should NOT be working at an elementary school. [C.K.] has admitted to me that he had a sexual relationship with [the CW] while she was a minor and that he told her not to tell anyone. He also admitted to me that they had been having sex for about a year and a half before they got caught. The evidence speaks for itself." Mother stated that she submitted the letter to the Paroling Authority because she believed that C.K. had sex with the CW while she was thirteen, and Dural did not. Dural was granted parole on December 1, 2011. On August 29, 2013, the Circuit Court denied Dural's second Rule 40 petition. The Court found that the testimony of C.W. and the Mother were not false. On February 27, 2018, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii held that the Circuit Court erred in denying Dural's second Rule 40 petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. The charges against Dural were dismissed by Judge Karen Nakasone on December 3, 2019. Dural was incarcerated for 8 years and was on parole for 8 years. Dural was not compensated in any way for the harm suffered by him as a result of having been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. On November 24, 2021, Dural filed a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and County of Honolulu and others but his complaint was dismissed by the court on November 9, 2023.
Which court heard State of Hawaii v. Roynes Dural, II?
This case was heard in First Circuit Court, Honolulu County, Hawaii, HI. The presiding judge was Karen S.S. Ahn.
Who were the attorneys in State of Hawaii v. Roynes Dural, II?
Plaintiff's attorney: Honolulu Hawaii District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Not Available.
When was State of Hawaii v. Roynes Dural, II decided?
This case was decided on November 3, 2003.