Case Title: State v. Manewa

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

seepor PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*
TN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

 

000:
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent /Plaintiff-Appellee

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant

ISAAC K. MANEWA, JR.,

 

No. 27554

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CR. NO. 04-1-0304) :

o2ns

  

8256 We 21 ascaqg

SEPTEMBER 12, 2007

WITH LEVINSON, J.,

NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.7
CONCURRING SEPARATELY, AND WITH WHOM MOON, C.J., JOINS

FH AL J.

Petitioner/Defendant~Appellant Isaac K. Manewa, Jr.
(Petitioner) filed an application for writ of certiorari?
(application) on March 19, 2007, requesting that this court

Porsuant to Hawas's Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp... 2006),
a party may appesl the decision of the intermediate appellate court (the ICA)

‘Ses HRS § 602-

Gnly by an application to this court for a writ of certiorari.
in determining whether to accept or reject the application for writ of

 

 

55 (a:

 

certiorari, thie coure reviews the ICA decision for:
Grave errors of of facts or
Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the (ICA)
Sith that of the supreme court, federal ecisions, oF

   

ro
@)
its own decision,
and the magnitude of such errors or inconsistencies
Gietating the need for further appeal.
The grant or dental of a petition for certiorari is
‘ee HRS § 602-59(a).

RS § 602-5916).
discretionary with this court.
‘+4FOR PUBLICATION IM MEST’ § HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS

 

review the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (the
ICA)? filed on January 22, 2007, affirming the September 28, 2005
judgment of the first circuit court? (the court). Petitioner was
charged in Count 8 of a February 19, 2004 indictment with
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree, HRS § 712-

1241 (1) (b) (44) (A) (Supp. 2003); in Count 9 with Promoting a
Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1242 (1) (b) (4)
(1993 & Supp. 2003)*; and in Count 10 with Unlawful Use of Drug
Paraphernalia, HRS § 329-43.5(a) (1993). He was convicted under

counts

 

2 the 800 was dsaued by then-Chief Judge James S. Burne and
nesociate Juages Corinne KA. Watanabe and Daniel A. Foley.

>the Honorable Richard K. Perkins presided.
+ wns § 712-1242 (Supp. 2003) stated, in relevant part, as follows:

Prosoting a dangerous drug in the first degree. (1) A
person connits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in
the first degree if the person knowingly:
tb) distribute:
aly" One or more preparations, compounds, mixtures,
of substances of an aggregate weight of:
(A) Queseiahth ounce or more, containing
Rethanphetamine, hefoin, morphine, oF

ine oF any of their respective salts,
3, and salts of isonere|-)

   

(Emphasis added.)

* uns § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part:

Prosoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.
(2) A person commits the offense of promoting « dangerous
Grag in the second degree if the person knowingly?

ib)” Possesses one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggre
ry

  

(emphasis added.)
4s++P0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***
§ and 9 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty

(20) years with a mandatory minimum of one (1) year for Count 87
and a term of imprisonment for ten (10) years with a mandatory
minimum six months for Count 9.
We hold that the evidence was insufficient to establish
the weight of the dangerous drugs required to be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt under the charges. Accordingly, the January 22,
2007 ICA judgment is reversed, the court's Septenber 28, 2005
judgnent is vacated, and the case is remanded for disposition in
accordance with this opinion.
1
A
‘the facts following were taken from the application and

the briefs.

on January 26, 29, [and] February 11, 2004, police
officer Ray Gabler, working under cover, bought
Sethanphettaine «from female, and arranged with her
for another buy on February 13, 2004. On February 13, 2004,
he packets ata zy
forkstG. Tretitioner) was subsequently taken Tato
EGstodyi.} ‘[Pollowing # search, Petiticnar was found to
have) €290 sn currency, a scale, lighter, anda cellular
Phone, [which were] seized from his perscn.

on February 15, 2004, pursuant to warrant, police
sched 8 Black fanny pack that [Petitioner] had been seen
Searing when was found in the bed of pick up truck [that
War located at the scone of the alleged incident). (the
Ena “s ol eos ad the

 

 

 

 

(Honalaie Police Departnent criminalist,) fassan
Yobsnmed [ ohamned)], examined, analyzed, snd reported on
the [afortnantioned) drug evidence, (Wchanned) wes
Sgteached Co the drug analysis unit at the fonoluie Police
Department” for over ten years. Asa criminalist. with the
Honoluls Police Departeent, (Hohanned"e) duties consisted of
the analysis and identification of controlled eubstance
fespendent enad| a2 of ex0e
fieidof dius analvsis and identification, - .°. {while
Gnder divest examination] Hohammed saintaiced that ne”

 
‘ATOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERt+#

“xoutinely weichisl every piece of evidence that cones in”
Bevpart of his resnonsibs nanslvsing and identifying
‘ilesal rugs.

(Emphases added.)
During direct examination Mohammed testified to the
Procedure for weighing of the crystalline substances recovered.

2, (EROSECUTOR Okay. Do you use any particular
Anstrunont during the regular course of busin
Geteraine the weight cf these substances?

(MOWED! “Yen, air. we use an analytical

Are you familiar with the analytical balance?
Yes.

How long have you been using this balance?
Twenty-five to. (ehirey) years

Are you familiar with its operation?

Yes.

Do" you know how it functions?

Hescisely ite mechanisms 1 wouldn't know_but I
Ts it feir to say then that this balance te a

 

 

piece of equipment that’s Used during the requiar course of
Business in your field of expertise?

Re That's correct.

0: Are vou gant whet
procedures ox there's any erotecol to determine whether or
‘not vour balance ip operating properive

>»

@ belefly explain to the jurors what

 

9. So the balance . . so that we are clear, you
check Your balance once a month?

A ynat'e correct

iv iSjq Ove StRX shack the balance before each . «

*

Q. Is“Ehere anything based on your experience with
this balance, 30 years of experience, that could indicate to
you whether Or not the balance is not working properly?

Noy Ihave not cone across that even once.
balance that vou described earlier?

x

Q._ To Your knowledge was the balance working
properly?

*

 

 

   

Yes, sir.

 
 

POR PUBLICATION IN WESE’S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***
—_—

°, sat ss
was extracted from se 2

TOEFENSE COUNSEL}; Oblection, Judge, There’s a lack
of tou sor the evi

TeROSECUTOR] 703,

[SHE COURT) Overruled

G." finde wae the resuit of the confirmation test?

ToerENSE COUNSEL: Again, Judge, objection. Lack of
foundation for scientific evidence,

TIME COURT): Overruled.

4G." iindt was the net woight of State's Exhibit Ho. 27

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Judge. Lack of
foundation for seientific evidence

[2HE COURT]: [Defense Counsel], are you going to make
tthe sane objection on all of the opinions az to weight end
a2 'to the nature of the substance?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL): Yes, Judge.

(SHE COURT): Then ov

hos
Tosrense COUNSEL): Soa sunning cbiection?
(THE COURT): Yes.

 

 

(Emphases added.)
During direct examination Mohammed also testified to
the procedure for identifying the crystalline substances seized.

@. [PROSECUTOR] Okay. Now as a criminalist whose
‘are dedicated to drug analysis and identification, do
‘Sry experience testing substances for the presence

Of methanphetanine?

‘Re (WORMED) Yes, T have.

Q. Asa ceininalist, are there any particular tests
thet you routinely perform to nake this determination fer
the presence of methamphetamine?

Ae Yes, sir.

Q. that test or teste do you routinely perform?

Ki we have @ couple of routine presumptive tests and
then there's @ couple of confirmation teste that we
routinely perform.

(0. Ff you Could name -~ let's go through the test

Rox

  

 

  

home those and sunmarize briefly what this test

 

°.
involves.
Specifically for methamphetamine?
@. For methaaphetamine.
Rl One would bea color test...

Q." Okay, go ahead.

Ki That's one presumptive test. Another presumptive
test that we can use for methamphetamine 1s a.
microcrystalline test where we subject @ small portion of
tthe evidence to another reagent, chloride phosphoric acid,
and sbeerve the developaent of microcrystalline under the
Riceoscope and characteristically if methanphetonine 1s
Present £ would get a clothespin-shapea crystal structure
Which did indicate or confirm the presence of
ethanphetamine. Those are two presumptive t

 

5
 

‘se070R PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!

©. Frosumptive tests, okay. Is there any other
tests, 2 confirmatory test?

'R. “Yes. Once the presumptive test gives an
Andication of what the drug would be, then
sonfim it with one of two contimation tests. I use an
dntrared instrument called the Fourier Tzansfore Infrared
‘Spectrometer. in short FUR. of [use the ces chromatoaranh
uan_spectronetex [iGCHS) ito contice the decinizive:

‘iGentified cresence of methamphetamine
absence of methamphetamine.

. As to the presumptive test, is the color reagent
test a test that you conmonly use during your normal course
of dutios as a criminalist?

Be Yes, sir.

, And’ ss this @ test bi
years Of experience at HPD that you rely on?

A. Yes, sir.

0. Now, the other presumptive test was another
reagent test) is that correct?

"h. Microcrystalline test.

Ql Tm sorry, microcrystalline test. Is this test
recognized in your field of expertiee as ~~ I’m sortys,
Eecognized to deteraine the presumptive presence of
ethanphetenine?

Re Yes, str.

Q. and! ss this test that you regularly perform
during the normal course of your duties?

‘he "ves, 1 do.

Q: bo you rely on this test?

Q! Same questions as to the confirmatory test. As to
the FIR -- we will use that acronym because 1 coulda’ t
possibly renenber the Fourier Transform, et cetera.

the FTIR teat a test that’s recognized in your
expertise as a test that’s commonly used te confirm
ice of methamphetamine?
Yes, it is.
Te this a test that you conmonly rely upon?
Yes, T do.
And’ a to (GOMS}, ie that similarly a test that’s
recognized in your fleld of expertise as acknowledged to
Confirm the presence of methamphetamine?

A. Yes, it is.

Q!_ And’ do you rely on the results of this test during
tthe normal course of business?

hr Yes, T

Q: and’ so that we are absolutely clear, have you been
trained and do you have professional experience in the
Adzinistration Gf each of these four tests?

A. Yes, T have.

 

 

pre

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

(Emphasis added.)

‘The following was adduced during defense counsel's

 

cross-examination with respect to the machines
©. [DEFENSE COUNSEL] Mr. Mohammed, the analytic
7, (MOHAMMED) “Tes, it Ts

   
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERt**

©. lao, the FTIR, that's electronic also: riaht?

AL Yen
@: Bad-also the couse
x

Yesvsin
G1 in other words, you've got to take an electric
plug and plug it into the AC in the wall?

R. ‘It's pernanently plugged.

G1 into Sn electronic source?

Ri Electrical source

01 fo ali these nachines, analytic balance, the FTIR
land the GOHS, ‘they are electronic as opposed to mechanical;
correct?

 

There may be mechanical componente within the
anelvtia] balance but sssentisiiy electrons balances
FRR. electronic, and GOS, as vou-said, are alsa

electronic.
O-find se you testified, all your training basically
ke ass chenist; correct?
R.'Yee, E have been a chemist all ay life. Working

 

 

aise.
0. kav. And vou! at cali
aon
oi
ie Putolan't be able te service thes but 1 do -- 1

have been trained to ensure That the GCMS and FIR are in
working condition.
3.

sorest?
%. That it's in croner vorking condition for ay
purmone.,
‘Sr Proper working condition, you can start it up,
take readouta from ity correct?

Re Yes. rocedur:
‘Loa explain, tach and avery sorning before any chemist
nes one of several GtMse, xe -e-a routine check on then to
‘snsufe that al] the parameters are within the manufacturer,
spscification.

Ska

Aude record those as auch and if it ia not, wa
sons ie 1p

Fem sare if it is note

ge 1s out

Q. But, Let me see, you did testify that the
manufacturer Sends representatives to do the actual
calibration; correct?

R. The actual servicing and the calibration two times
a year, yes, sir.

0. “Gkay. "Now the analytic balance that you mentioned

 

 

0: “"has st the same particular balance that you
used to analyse the State's Exhibits 2 through 7, same
analytic balance?

Re Yes, sir. 1 have my individual analytic balance.

Q! And’ on ail of these exnibits, 2 through 7, you
used the GOWS; is that correct?

Re TET may refer to my notes?
‘s+47OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER!+#

9. certaimiy.
Boob ved the FY si

fee, in ui Titsed
the GOMS, that will be correct.

Q." tow, la it the same let's talk about the GCMs.

$2 it the sane GOMS machine that was used on all items
you've talked about?

ae aay Tre!

@: sure.
Liuséd two cowse.

 

 

‘ence my notes?

   

How, you mentioned that the manufacturers,
they send Feps two vimes a year to service or calibrate ali,

 

 

A. on the

 

Lytic balance, yes.
‘How about the GoMs?
‘TbeLisve they cone in if not tuice, at least once
That's correct.
Row about the FTIR, how often do the manufacturers
send the reps?

Rr Te not twice, at least once a year.

Q: Okay. And that’s, again, to service and
calibrate; correct?

Re that's correct.

Okay. So a9 far as you know, the calibration and

servicing was done, correct?

Re Yes, sir.

 

   

 

0: But’ vou. “yourself, vou don't have the personal
knowlesce of the calibration ang the servicing; comacts

Re once he ie finished calibrating it then ne fills
out a form and indicates that it was in proper working
Sondition prior to his testing and found it working after
the servicing, too. The first thing he does is to make sure
that it wae in working condition when be arrives.

balance, GOS, FTIR
"A. inet’ correct, ail the instruments at the
laboratory.
° a
A) Dhaven"t broaght Te, bur 1t75
@! Bat you don’t have then now?
A. No, Puss not reauired to bring them.

yatlable:

 

(Emphases added.)
B.
Following the end of the case, Petitioner “move(d) for
a judgment of acquittal.” Petitioner asserted that “(t]he

testimony from the chemist, Nohanmed, was incompetent evidence
sesPOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Sn

under the case State v, Wallacel, 80 Hawai'i 382, 910 P.2d 695
(1996). The court responded that “the motion’s denied.”

in

 

In his application, Petitioner poses four issue:
(2) “whether the (clourt abused its discretion in allowing
[Respondent’s] chemist to opine on the weight and identity of the
State’s drug evidence”; (2) “whether the (clourt abused its
discretion in failing to exclude (Respondent's) chemist’ s
testimony pursuant to Hawai'l Rules of Evidence [(HRE)], Rule
702"; (3) “whether the [cJourt abused its discretion in relying

on [HRE) Rule 703{7} in admitting (Respondent’s] chemist’s

 

+ RE Rute 702 (1993) entitled “Testimony of experta,” states as
follows

If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the
Gvidence of to determine @ fact in issue, a witnes
Guslified ss an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
Gaining, or education aay cestity thereto in the form’ of an
opinion cr otherwise. in deternining the issue of
Gbetstance co the trier of fact, the court may consider the
trustworthiness ang validity of the scientific technique oF
ode of analysis enployed by the proffered expert.

 

Petitioner maintaine that “Mohamed, 2 chemist qualified as an expert in the
analysis and identification of substances, was not by his ow adnission
{rained to calibrate, maintain or (service) the FFIR, GCMS, and balance
scale.”

+ RE Rule 703 (1993) regarding "[b]ases of opinion testinony by
experts," states that

 

‘me facts or date in the particular case upon which an
expert Bases an opinion oF inference may be those perceived
by of made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If
OE a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the
particclar field in forming opinions or inferences upon the
Subject, ‘the facts of data need not be admissible in
Qvidence. The court may, however, disallow testimony in the
form of an opinion or inference if the underlying facts or
Gata indicate Jack of trustworthiness.

 

 

 

Petitioner naintains that “Rule 703, regarding the basis of opinion testinony
by on expert witness, only applies once an expert has been properly qualified
‘continued. ==)

 
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***

testimony”) and (4) “whether the (c]ourt abused its discretion in

 

failing to exclude [Respondent's] chemist’s testimony pursuant to
[IRE] Rule 403." In effect, an affirmative answer to the first
issue subsumes the remaining three issues.
ur
‘The ICA affirmed the September 28, 2005 judgment. As
to the firat desue, the ICA contended in pertinent part:

A “foundational prerequisite for the rellability of a test.
Fesuit ie a showing thot the measuring! ingtronent ie in

Working order." (lallace, 0 Hawai'i at 407, 910
Eipe°ae920] "linterna quotation marks and citation
onitted). “therefore, & proper foundation for the
Sntroduction of a scientific test result would necessarily
include expert testinony regarding: (1) the qualifications
Of the expert) (2) whether the expert employed valig.
Cechniques £0 obtain the test result; snd (3) uhether the
measuring instrument it in proper working order.” state va.
sng, 98 Hawaii 348, 355, 4@ Pod 395, 602 (2002) (anternal
quotation marks and citation onitted) .

‘the parties here agree that Wohaned was properly
qualified Ss sn expert witness... [Petitioner] argues
that (Respondent) failed te satiafy the second prong Under
Lang Because Wohanmed did not aver that the presumptive

ent test vas recognized in his field.

fer, directs this court to no portion of
the record where he objected to this alleged failure, and
thus’ the point 1s deened waived, HRE Rule 103.

JS (As to the second ground, Fetitioner] sraues:
feuzed were -croperly calibrated and/or sersiceds

= badness siibrated thes an

 

 

 

 

   

(. scontinued)
to testify as an expert. Mohamed was not qualified to testify as an expert
as to the maintenance, servicing and/or calibration of the instruments he
teed.”

+ HRE Rute 403 (2993) ate

Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of
prejudice, confusion, o vaste of time. Although relevant,
Cvidence may be excluded if its probative value te
Substantielly ovtweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
Confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
Considerations of undue delay, waste of time, oF needless
presentation of cumulative evident

 

ae follow

 

 

   

 

Petitioner maintains that Mohamed was not qualified to testify as to the
proper calibration of the sn 5) thus, the c
Bfailing to exclude Mchanned's testinony a

10

   
 

}POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER**#

 

the sanufacturer™ petivionse

nenifecturer hie eseinat

‘Hie equipment was calibrated oronerly anounte to

Taduissible hearsay. domever, Hohenmed testified that he

hse personal —keowledze that the balance was serviced semi=
Th Hallace, the testifying expert lacked personal

Knowledge that his scale had been properly calibrated,
nerely relied on the assunption that the manufacturer's
Tepresentative had done #0, and failed to supply the service
records? in thet failure, the Hawai'l Supreme Court found
error, Wallace, 60 Mawai't at 412, 910 P-2d at 725. while
iecnondenti did not pesdce the saintenance records for the

halance in cbestion, [Respondent] did offer an indenendeat
Hiurse of velisble svidenee that the Delance was working

a That he-personall

puadditien to =
bythe Banufacturers representative, Hohammed'a testinony
tat he hisself verified and valigsted hie bslance therefore
satiifies the shird prong of the Long test.

S00 at 5-7 (Emphases added.) In his application, Petitioner

 

observes that:

Replying Wallace, the ICA noted that (Respondent) did
not produce any Raintenance reccrds, but reasoned that this
was not necessary as [Respondent] had offered an independent
Surce of reliable evidence. S00 at 6-7. This source uae’
and validaved the balance each sonth in addition to ita
Sesivannael servicing, S00 at 7. thie testimony, The ICA
eid; satisfied the proper working order test. Id.

The ICA held that this testimony was not hearsay ag it was
based on Mchanned’s own personal knowledge that the
fequipnent had been verified and, thus, was working properly.
Soo at 7-8.

 

 

 

 

 

(Emphasis added.) In challenging the S00, Petitioner contends
the ICA erred as follows:

‘The ICA's application of Nallace . . . fails for five

 

Wallace, uohaned's Implicit eesumot ion that the
Danufactirer's representative ia qualified to maintaing
service and calibrate the machine. Two, Mohammed hinselt
‘and/or calibration of the machines, Thus, his testinony to
the effect that the machines were in proper working order
Was incompetent because it exceeded the scope of his expert
Knowleage: Three, Mchsmmed assumed, without having

ines use done competently. Four, Mohammed did a0
‘*VFOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERSS#

 

eauiied to produce nonshesrsay, competent evidence an to
be pachinea’ calibration from 2 proper source; t-e-, the

manufacturer’s representative and/or records.
(Emphases added.)
Respondent did not file a response to the application.
qv.
In its answering brief, Respondent maintained that
(1) “[t}he application of [state v, Schofill, 63 Haw. 77, 81, 621
P.2d 364, 368 (1980),} to the charge of distributing

chanphetamine as set forth in Count VIII[,] reveals that

 

[Respondent) could prove the identity and weight of the
methamphetamine without (Mohanmed’s] testimony regarding the
results of his analysis” (emphasis added), inasmuch as (a) “[iln
order to prove the identity and weight of the methamphetamine,
[Respondent] needed to adduce evidence that demonstrated beyond a
reasonable doubt the existence of an offer to sell one-eighth
ounce or more of methamphetamine; which would ‘necessarily
require proof of the . . . intention to perform’ such a
transaction,” Schofill, 63 Haw. at 83, 621 P.2d at 369, which was
proven because (i) “(t]he intent to perform the sale of the ‘two
8 balls’ of methamphetamine was demonstrated unequivocally,”

(4) “[Petitioner’s] willing participation and complicity in the
sale of the methamphetamine is further revealed by his oun
testimony,” (iif) “[Petitioner] had heard the term ‘crystal
methamphetamine’ and the slang term ‘ice’. . . he knew ‘what ice
look (ed) like," it was a dangerous drug and illegal to possess or

sell,” and (iv) “(Petitioner's] criminal liability arises from

a2
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER**#

 

his complicity in the sale”; (2) unlike the situation in Wallace,
there was evidence from which the trial court could conclude that
the instruments [Mohammed] used to determine methamphetamine was
present . . . were “in proper working order,” inasmuch as (a)
“the deputy prosecutor elicited testimony that demonstrated
[Nohanned’ s} expertise in the analysis and identification of
ilegal drugs”? and (b) “t]he testimony the deputy prosecutor
elicited from (Mohammed) also denonstrated that the instruments
he used were in proper working order and the results were
reliable and indicated the presence of methanphetanine in and the

respective weight of each of prosecution exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and

61,1” dnasmuch as (4) “Mohammed testified as an ‘expert in the
1d of dru ntification’ and * inion that
he would be dearee of
rtainty bas: of expertise,’” (A)

“Wohanmed testified that he used an ‘analytical balance’ to weigh
prosecution exhibits 2 and 3... ., and 4, 5, and 6,”

eo” sexs rate’
the analytical balance and had worked with the instrument for

 

Respondent argues as to Mohanned, that (1) “he had an
undergraduate and Snaster's’ degrese in ‘applied chemistry," (2) “he had been
Nateached to the drug analysis unit at the Honolulu Police Department’ for
over ten years," (3) he had ‘completed a nine-month full-time training st the
Separtnent, followed by extensive training with the Drug Enforcement Agency in
Neshington, thea with the California Criminelist Institute and with the
Netrone Research Center,’" (4) “during his employment with the police
Uepartnent he had ‘attended numerous workshops and seminars,’* (5) “as part. of
his ‘ongoing professional education’ he attends at a ‘minimin one (workshop or
Seminar] a year,’* (6) "he belonged to ‘The Anerican Acadeny of Forensic
Seiences,’*’ and (7) "he had been qualified to testify as an expert in ‘the
examination and anelysis of controlled substances’ in the courts of Hawai'i
“folver 50 times.”

 

 

    

 

 

13
‘s*+F0R PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS
setwenty= 1" (C) “Mohammed also indicated
u y 1 tay

the reaular course of business in this! field,’ (D) “Mohammed
also testified thet he ‘would pot have used any of the

instrument: oper workini
that particular day,/" (ii) “unlike the situation in Wallace

+ + Mohanmed’s testimony demonstrated that he weighed the
purported methamphetamine ina manner that was consistent with
his uncontested status as an established ‘expert in the field of
drug analysis and identification,’ and (iii) “Mohammed's
testimony demonstrated that he took the steps necessary to ensure

nal a fe working order
thereby rendering results upon which he

= to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty based on
(his) filed of expertise.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
For these reasons, Respondent requested that Defendant’ s
convictions and sentence be affirmed.

v,
In his reply brief, Petitioner argued (1) “[Respondent]

Gid not prove all material elements of pronoting a dangerous drug
in the second degree (i.e., possession of one-eighth ounce or
more of methamphetamine) beyond a reasonable doubt,” inasmuch as
(a) “[t]here was [not) sufficient evidence to convict defendant,”
(b) “(Respondent did not} introduce sufficient evidence

concerning the weight of the substances [Petitioner] was alleged

ua
 

/*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER'#*

 

to have possessed,” (c) “[Petitioner’s] objection raised the
Assue of the lack of proper foundation for admitting evidence as

to the weight of the substances in question,” (d) “{Respondent)

wag allesed to have possessed,” and (e) “(Wallace does apply] to

the facts of [Petitioner’

 

case,” and (2) “[Respondent] did not
prove all material elements of promoting dangerous drug first
degree (i.e., distributing of one-eighth ounce or more of
methamphetamine) beyond a reasonable doubt.” Petitioner
“respectfully requests that this [clourt vacate his conviction
and remand this matter for further proceedings.” (Emphasis
added.)

vi.

Respondent's citation to Schofill is irrelevant as that
case is plainly distinguishable from the case at hand. In
Schofill, the question pertinent to the instant case was whether
“incompetent and prejudicial evidence was presented by the State
to the orand jury[.]" 63 Haw. at 78, 621 P.2d at 366 (emphasis
added). An undercover police officer had established several
contacts with both the defendant (Schofill) and an intermediary
(Thornton) who both had, on numerous occasions, promised to
deliver cocaine to the undercover police officer. When the
promised amount of cocaine was not delivered to the undercover
officer, “he asked for his money back.” Id, at 80, 621 P.2d at

367.

1s
 

‘s#4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS

 

As this court noted, “[nJo actual purchase was ever
consummated with the defendant.” Id, Schofill was “indicted for
knowingly distributing proscribed drugs under HRS ($] 712-1241
(2976 & Supp. 1979)(.]" Id, at 81, 621 P.2d at 368. It was

observed that “[a] person ‘distributes’ . . . where, with the

 

specific intent to sell, the accused has offered to sell the

 

contraband.” Id, (citations omitted). The undercover offici
was the only witness before the grand jury and testified in

pertinent part:

a eat
sre Tive purchased cocaine and it has been testes ins
Inboratory with positive results, It looked similar to that
substance:

. Zn addition to thie working knowledge of the
droge, have vou a hs
Scenti¢testion?

A. Several collece courses dealt with drugs and

TEHE PROSECUTOR): Are there any questions?

(GRAND JURY FOREWAN):" Those four packets were tested,

did you say?

  

 

 

 

hey we
Id, at 80, 621 P.2d at 368 (emphases added). with respect to
proof at the grand jury that the white substance was cocaine,
this court said the officer's expertise need not be such as to
qualify him as an expert “at trial” to “render an opinion” as to

Whether “the substance was in fact cocaine.”

The substance sen sand because
of his training and experience the officer was able to
testify that it appeared to him to be cocaine. Kis
ackarcund concerning a cation msobt hav

‘by the prosecution.

been noe fully develoned However,
evidence before the arsnd Sury, where the standard is
sasentially that of orcbable cause, need not be as detailed
Seat trial Moreover, the officer™s expertise nead hat oe
‘such 2s to aualify him to render an opinion that the
‘ubstance waa in fact cocaine.

Id, at 83, 621 P.2d at 369 (emphases added). Accordingly, this

 

 

16
 

“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*S*

 

court held the officer “was qualified to state that the substance
‘appeared to be cocaine’” and “[t]he challenged testimony was
neither incompetent nor prejudicial{.]” Id, at 83, 621 P.2d at
370. As distinguished from Schofill, the proceeding here was not
at the grand jury, but at trial, and in the trial proceeding it
was required that Mohammed be qualified as an expert in the
identification and weighing of methamphetamine.

vir.

Ag it relates to Petitioner's first issue, in Mallace,
this court concluded that the accuracy of an electric balance was
not satisfied. There, Donald Chinn (Chinn), a forensic chemist
and qualified expert, testified regarding the net weight of
cocaine found in the defendant's car. Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at
412, 910 P.2d at 725. This court noted that although Chinn “had
personal knowledge that the electronic balance was calibrated
annually[,]" he “lacked personal knowledge that the balance had
been correctly calibrated and merely assumed that the
manufacturer's service representative had done so." Id.
However, “(t]he service representative did not testify at trial
regarding his calibration of the balance{.]” Id, And further,
“the prosecution, through custodian of records, [did not] offer
any business record of the manufacturer reflecting proper
calibration of the balance.” Id.

Based on the above, Wallace held that “[t]here being no
reliable evidence showing that the balance was ‘in proper working

order,’ the prosecution failed to lay ‘a sound factual

vv
 

‘*A7OR PUBLICATION IN WEST! S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS:

 

foundation’ that the net weight of the cocaine measured by the
balance was accurate.” Id. (internal citations omitted). It was
concluded that “because inadequate foundation was laid to show
that the weight measured by the balance could ‘be relied on as a
substantive fact,’ [the forensic chenists’] assumption that the
balance was accurate was based on inadmissible hearsay.” Id.
(internal citations omitted). The preceding analysis can be
applied to the case at hand.

vin.

Nohanned was qualified as an expert in drug analysis
and identification." According to Petitioner's application for
certiorari, Mohanmed used the GCHS to identify the crystalline
substances recovered as methamphetamine. Mohanmed testified that
“a routine check” was done of the GMS “each and every morning”
“to ensure that all the paraneters are within manufacturer
specifications.” Mohammed related “if any parameter is out of
spec, we do not use it until it is rectified.” Thus, the record
indicates that there was an established manufacturers procedure
that could be conducted by the user to ensure that the GCHSs were

in working order according to the manufacturer's specifications.

 

“At trial, the following transpized:

[PROSECUTOR]: At this tine the State offers Me.
Mohammed as an expert
, subject to any voir dire examination:
THE COURT: (Defense counsel] .
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No objection, Judge
THE COURT: He may testify.

8 added.)

 

ae
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER'#*

Because the evidence indicated the GcHSs were operating
swithin the manufacturer specification(s),” under this procedure
Mohammed’ s ovn testimony supported the conclusion that the GCHSs
were in proper working order at the time the evidence was tested.

Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 407, 910 P.2d at 720. The

 

fore,
Nohanned’s assertion on cross-examination that “I do have
personal knowledge because I would not have used any of the
Instruments if they were not in proper working condition in that
particular days,” [sic] 1s consistent with the “personal
knowledge” necessary to establish that the GcMSs were in proper
working condition. Based on the foregoing analysis, a proper
foundation for the identity of the crystalline substances was
laid. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in
allowing Mohammed to testify as to the identity of the
crystalline substances.

Ix.

However, as to the reliability of the analytic balance,
the ICA distinguishes Wallace on the ground the expert in that
case “relied on the assumption that the manufacturer's
representative” "had . . . properly calibrated” his scale,
whereas “Mohammed . . . testified . . . he personally verified
and validated the balance monthly,” “satisfy[ing]" that “the
balance was working properly.” S00 at 7 (citing Wallace, 60
Hawai'i at 412, 910 P.2d at 725). However, the evidence failed
to establish (1) that Mohammed had any training or expertise ih
calibrating the balance, (2) that the

1s
‘s*4F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS
balance had been properly calibrated by the manufacturer's

 

service representatives, (3) that there was an accepted
manufacturer's established procedure for “verify[ing] and
validat [ing]” that the balance was in proper working order and
that if such a procedure existed, that Mohanmed followed it, and
(4) that his balance was in proper working order at the time the

evidence was weighed. Accordingly, as to the balance and the

 

related weighing of the methamphetamine, it appears the ICA

gravely erred.

 

A

Mohammed was not qualified as an expert in the
calibration of the analytical balance. Mohammed used the balance
to weigh the evidence although he did not know how its mechanism

functioned.’ The balance is an electronic instrument."

 

Mohammed testified as follows on dizect examination:

©. okay. Do you use any particular instrument during
the regular course of business to determine the weight of
these substances?

‘Yes, sir, we use an analytical balance.
Are you familiar with this enalyeical balance?
Yes.
How ong have you been vei
Twenty-five to (thirty] ye
Are you familiar with its operation?
Xe
D5" you know how it functions?
: a bot 1
know I've Been trained bow €0 use it and to operate. it.

 

his balance?

  

 

(Exphasis added.) For convenience, parts of the transcript previously quoted
are reiterated in the discussion infra.

 

the following was adduced on cross-examination:

Q. Mr. Mohammed, the analytic balance you mentioned,
is that an electronic instrument?
(continued...

 

20
‘s++70R PUBLICATION IN MEST’ HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER**

OO
Mohammed himself did not know how to calibrate the balance or how
to service it, He indicated that he had never calibrated the
balance and that he would not be able to service the machines,
although, as noted before, he had been trained to ensure that the
GOMS and FTIR instruments were in working order.

© (DEFENSE COUNSEL). Okay. nd you've never worked

he Be,
2. So*besicelly you can cperate these machines,
correct, but you cennot maintain it [sic]; correct?

B. "Tudolan'e be able to service thes but...

have been trained to ensure that the GOWS and FTZA are in
Norking condition.

 

(Emphases added.) Further, on cross examination, defense counsel
asked Mohammed, “[¥Jou cannot testify to the proper servicing of
all three instruments because you, yourself, personally didn't do
the servicing: correct?” Mohammed answered, “That would be
correct. I wouldn't be able to testify to the servicing of the
instruments.”

B.

w

Like forensic chemist Chinn in Wallace, Mohammed “had

personal knowledge that the electronic balance was calibrated
[semi-Jannually.” 80 Hawai'i at 412, 910 P.2d at 725. However,
as in Wallace, there was no evidence that Mohammed had personal
knowledge that the balance had been correctly calibrated.

Defense counsel addressed this issue during cross examination:

(, .,continved)
Be Yes, st is.

21
‘s+4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REZORTERC#*

 

So a8 far

0, [DEFENSE COUNSEL: okay you know,
the calibration and servicing wae’ don

‘A. (NONMMIED) + You, she

@: sue vou, voursel’, you don't have the persons
knowlesige of The calibration and the servicing:
correct?

Re Once he ss finished calibrating it then he fills

out a form and indicates that Se was in proper working
Condition prior to his testing and found it working after
the servicing, too. The first thing he does is to make sure
that it was in working condition when he arrives

G." ind ne {itis out 2 form for all three, anslutic

   

 

 

.
balance aa aatcecs
@. uw forms with vou now: riaht?
A. Thaven"t brought it, but it"s available.
Q: But you don’t have them now?
A. Bo, [was not required to bring them
@: fo‘maten 1 servic
ox proser selibration, that's contsined on these forme:
see on .
at's corre
That's correct

 

(Emphases added.) Based on these statements by Mohammed, he
“lacked the personal knowledge that the balance had been
correctly calibrated and merely assumed that the manufacturer's
service representative had done so.” Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 412,
910 P.2d at 725.

2.

Again, as in Wallace, Respondent did not call the
manufacturer’s service representative to testify to calibration
of the balance. Id, Moreover, as in Wallace, Respondent did not
offer any business records of the manufacturer indicating a
correct calibration of the balance. This court in Wallace noted,
that “Wallace concedes in his brief that ‘[a] document provided
by the calibrating agency showing the nane of the person

calibrating the [balance], that he was qualified, [and] that [the

22
‘s#+F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANAI'E REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'*#

OO

balance) was calibrated on a certain date may well have fallen
under the heareay exception[s relating to] business records, but
this was not (offered into evidence.]’" Id, at 412 n.28, 910
P.2d at 725 n.28 (some brackets in original and some added).
Although available per the testimony of Mohammed, Respondent did
not offer such records into evidence. Accordingly, as in
Wallace, Respondent failed to offer “through a custodian of
records, - . . any business record of the manufacturer reflecting
proper calibration of the balance.” Id, at 412, 910 P.2d at 725
(citation omitted) .

3.

Given the foregoing, an “inadequate foundation was laid
to show that the weight measured by the balance could ‘be relied
on as a substantive fact,’ [Mchanmed’s] assumption that the
balance was accurate was based on inadmissible hearsay.” Id.
(citations omitted).

xI.

Respondent and the ICA apparently rely on Mohammed’ s
assertion that “{w]e have a manufacturer representative who
checks out and services the balance two times a year, and I have
my own personal balance which 1 verity and validate once a month
and.we so record it{,]” (emphasis added), as distinguishing this
case from Wallace. The ICA placed emphasis on the fact that
“wohanmed . . . testified that he personally verified and

validated the balance monthly.” SD0 at 7-8.

23
‘S*#FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERI*#

Q. [PROSECUTOR] Are you familiar, 4€ you know,
whether or not any procedures or there's any protocel to
Geternine whether of not your Balance is operating properly?

ae Yes, sir.

Q: will you please briefly explain to the jurors what
this process Ls.

par manufactur sentativ

 

 

Sen per raNe nd val

Q. Is there anything based on your experience with
this balance, 30 years of experience, that could indicate to
you vbether Or not the balance is not working properly?

A. lio, T have not cone across that even once.

  

(Emphases added.) This, the ICA concluded, “satisfies the third
prong of the Long” test. SDO at 7; Long, 98 Hawai'i at 355, 48
P.3d at 602 (stating that the third prong was “whether the
instrument is in proper working order"). Similarly, in its
answering brief Respondent maintained that Mohanmed “took the

necessary steps . . . to insure that his . . . balance was in .

the reference to Mohanned's “personal balance” (enphasis added)
creates confusion as to its invelvesent in the weighing of Respondent’ s,
Exhibits 2 through 7, and whether that particular balance was working
properly. Defen engaged Mohammed in the following series of
geestions, which indicates that the balence used to weigh Respondent’ s
Exhibits 2 through ? was a government owed instruent serviced by the
Banufecturer!

 

 

©. (DEFENSE COUNSEL:) Mr. Mohammed, the snalytical
balance you mentioned is that an electronic instrunent?
‘A. (MOHAMMED!) Yes, St

 

 

©." And you" ve nes

 

1 worked at calibrating these

instruscnts?
Ae Ne.
Q.” Gut, let me see, vou did testify that the

A. The actual servicing and the calibration two tines
aver
©. Okay. Mow the analvtical balance that you

 

 

mS ee
o " _ hat
sed se State 2 25
ae.
os added.)

 

26
‘¢+FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ JANAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER**#

 

. working order.” As emphasized above, Respondent also allud
to the fact that Mohammed was an expert and his opinion had been
“based on his field of expertise,” he had worked on the balance
for over 25-30 years, the balance was used in the regular course
of business.”

Thus, as to the procedure or protocol to determine
whether the balance was working properly, Mohamed first asserted
that @ service representative checked the balance twice a year.
However, as mentioned before, Mohanned did not know how to
calibrate or service the balance, no service representative
testified as to his or her calibration of the balance, and no
business record was introduced into evidence in lieu of such
testimony.

As to Mohanmed’s assertion that the balance was in
“proper working order,” because he “verified and validatled it]
‘once @ month,” Respondent failed to produce evidence of any
manufacturer's established procedure for such validation and

verification or of what such procedure involved. Mohanmed’s

 

statenent thet he “in his experience” had “not come across”
anything “that could indicate whether or not the balance is not
working properly” in 30 years is anbiguous. It suggests that
either there was nothing which would indicate whether the balance

was working properly or not, or that there were indicia that

 ——_-Respondent’# contentions bear on Mohanned’ s qualificstions to
identity and analyze the drugs and to opine on their nature and the procedure
and instruments used, but do not establish facts with Fespect to the

of the electronic belance itself.

   

25.
‘s*4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS 24D PACIFIC REPORTERY+#

 

would allow Mohammed to determine whether the balance was
operating properly. The testimony thus begs the question of
whether there vas a manufacturer’s established procedure for
verifying that the balance was working properly and, if so, that
Nohanned followed that particular procedure or, if there was no
such procedure in place or designated by the balance’ s
manufacturer, that the balance could be accepted as reliable
based simply on the semi-annual manufacturer service inspections.
There was no evidence to establish either was the case, leaving
the testimony insufficient to establish the reliability of the

balance

 

By contrast, as mentioned before, Mohammed testified “a
routine check” was done of the GCMS “each and every morning” “to
ensure that all the parameters are within manufacturer
specifications.” Respondent submitted no evidence of a similar
procedure to confirm that the balance was operating within the
paraneters of the manufacturer's specifications before the tine

of the weighing." Thus, although the record indicates that

 

% Respondent itself elicited testimony that Nohanned did not test
the balance to determine if it was working properly at the tine of the
Weighing. When the prosecutor asked Wchanmed, “Bo you ever check, the belance
22". before each individual test that you perform during the normal course of
busthess?” he responded, "No, siz.” Mohanaed implicitly indicated he did not
because nothing in chirty years "Could indicate” to him that the balance was
working inproperly. fo reiterate the testimony:

 

©. Is there anything based on your experience with
this balance, 30 years of experience, shat-could indscate to
Re Noy T Rave not cone crore That even once.

(Emphasis odded.) In the absence of any other evidence of an accepted
manufacturer’ s procedure, an appropriate inguiry would be whether the accuracy
of the balance had been checked before the weighing of the

 

 

   

26
   

|FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'E REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS"
OO

Mohanned was trained to follow a certain procedure to ensure that
the GcuSs were in working order, it fails to show that there was
a manufacturer's accepted procedure for the user of the balance
to implement to ensure the balance was in working order.

‘Therefore, Mohanmed’s assertion on cross-examination

 

that “1 do have personal knowledge because T would not have used
any of the instruments if they were not in proper working
condition in that particular days," [sic] 1s inconsistent with
the “personal knowledge” necessary to establish that the balance
was in proper working condition. Based on the foregoing analysis
a proper foundation for the weight of the methamphetamine was not
established.
xin.

Disregarding the erroneously adnitted weight of the
methamphetamine, the record, is not legally sufficient to support
Petitioners convictions for the charges. As recounted in

Wallace,

HRS § 701-114 (2) (a) and (b) (1993) requires proof beyond @

rable doubt of each elenent of the offence, as well as
ate of mind required co establish each elenent of the
fe. Woreover, ARS § 702-204 (1983) provides in
nt parte) person is not guilty of an offense
She person actee intentionally, krewinely,

iigently, as the law specifi

‘lenent of the offense.
(1993) provider that “Iwhen] the definition of an offense
Specifies the state of mind sufficient for the commission of
thet offense, without distinguishing ancng the elenents
thereof, the specified state of mind shall apply to all,
elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly
Spears." In addition, pursuant to HRS 702-208 (1993),
the requisite state of mind applies to such conduct,
attendant circonstences, and results of conduct as are

      

          

 

 

 

 

(. .continved)
Respondent anticipated.

20
 

“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTEI

 

specified by the definition of the offence.
80 Hawai'i at 412, 910 P.2d at 725 (citations omitted).

A person conmits the offense of Promoting @ Dangerous
Drug in the First Degree in violation of HRS § 712-
1241 (1) (b) (44) (A), inter alia, if the person knowingly
distributes “[o]ne or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or
substances of an aggregate weight of . . . [o]ne eighth ounce or
nore, containing methamphetanine[.]” Thus, for this offense, the
prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Petitioner (1) distributed one or more substances containing
methamphetamine (Lies. the prohibited conduct); (2) the
substances were of an aggregate weight of one-eighth ounce or
more (ists, the attendant circumstance of requisite quantity);
and (3) the he acted knowingly (i.e., the requisite state of mind
with respect to both of the foregoing elements). See Wallace, 60
Hawai" at 412, 910 P.2d at 725.

A person conmits the offense of Promoting a Dangerous
Drug in the Second Degree in viclation of HRS § 712-
1242 (1) (b) (4), inter alia, if the person knowingly “{[p]ossesses
one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of
an aggregate weight of . . . one-eighth ounce or more, containing
methamphetamine[.]” Thus, for this offense, the prosecution was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner
(2) possessed one or more substances containing methamphetamine
(des, the prohibited conduct); (2) the substances were of an

aggregate weight of one-eighth ounce or more (i,e., the attendant

28
‘++F0R PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAMAI'E REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*##

 

circumstance of requisite quantity); and (3) he acted knowingly
(Lies, the requisite state of mind with respect to both of the
foregoing elements). See Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 413, 910 P.2d at
726.

As to the first degree charge, the evidence established
that Petitioner distributed one or more substances containing
methamphetamine, and that he acted knowingly in distributing such
substances. As to the second degree charge, the evidence
established that Petitioner possessed one or more substances
containing methamphetamine, and that he knowingly possessed such
substances. However, disregarding Mohammed's testimony as to the
weight of the substances, the record is devoid of any evidence of
the requisite weight of the methamphetamine, a material element
of the offenses charged. See id. Because those material
elements of the offenses are not supported by substantial and
admissible evidence, Respondent failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove every element of the offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. See id. Therefore, Petitioner's convictions
must be vacated. See id

xIIT.

Having vacated Petitioner's convictions, “for
evidentiary insufficiency, . . . the double jeopardy clause of
the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution bars a
retrial of that offense.” Id, at 414, 910 P.2d at 727 (citation
omitted). “However, remanding the case for retrial on lesser
Ancluded offenses offends neither the fifth amendment to the

29
‘s+sfOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACTFIC REFORTERY+#

 

United states Constitution nor article I, section 10 of the
Hawas' Constitution.” Id, (citing State v. Malufau, 80 Hawai'i
126, 136, 906 P.2d 612, 622 (1995).

“For purposes of article I, section 10, a lesser
included offense is an offense that is (1) ‘included’ in a
charged offense, within the meaning of HRS § 701-109(4) (1993),
and (2) ‘of a class and grade lower than the greater (charged)

offense,’ as described in HRS $§ 701-109(4) (a) and 701-

 

109(4) (c).” Id. at 415, 910 P.2d at 728. Furthermore, “if an

 

appellate court deens the evidence insufficient as a matter of
law to support a jury's guilty verdict on a greater offense but
finds the evidence sufficient to support a conviction on a lesser
included offense, it may enter a judgment of conviction on that
lesser included offense.” Id, at 414-15, 910 P.2d at 727-28
(quoting Malufau, 80 Hawai'i at 135, 906 P.2d at 621).

As to Count 8, Promoting a Dangerous Drug in Second
Degree, HRS § 712-1242(c) is included in the charged offense of
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree, HRS § 712
1241 (2) (b) (44) (A), Snasmuch as “[i]t is established by proof of
the same or less than all the facts required to establish the
conmission of the offense charged{,]” HRS § 701-109(4) (a), and
because “it is impossible to conmit the greater without also
conmitting the lesser.” State v. Kinnane, 79 Hawai'i 46, 51, 697

P.2d 973, 978 (1995) (citations omitted). The second degree

30
‘*++FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS**

 

offense being @ class 8 felony, it is “of a class and grade lower
than the greater [charged] offense," Wallace, 60 Hawai't at 415,
920 P.2d at 728, a class A felony. Thus, Promoting a Dangerous
Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1242(e) 1s a lesser included
offense of the charged offense of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in
the First Degree, HRS § 712-1241(1) (b) (44) (A)

As recounted supra, the evidence establishes that
Petitioner knowingly distributed methamphetamine, A person
commits the offense of promoting @ dangerous drug in the second
degree if the person knowingly . . . [dJistributes any dangerous
drug in any amount.” HRS § 712-1242(1) (c). Thus, on remand of
count 8, the court shall enter judgnent convicting Petitioner of
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree as defined by HRS
$ 712-1242(1) (ec).

As to Count 9, Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third
Degree, HRS § 712-1243(1) (1993 & Supp. 2003), is included in the
charged offense of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second
Degree, HRS § 712-1242(1) (b) (4), inasmuch as “[i]t is established
by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to
establish the conmission of the offense charged{,]” HRS § 701-
109(4) (a), and because “it is impossible to commit the greater
without elso committing the lesser.” Kinnane, 79 Hawai'i at 51,
997 P.2d at 978 (citations omitted). The third degree offense
being a class C felony, it is “of a class and grade lower than

the greater [charged] offense,” a class 8 felony. Thus,

 

3
“S*47OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERM*®
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, HRS § 712-

1243(2), 18 @ lesser included offense of the charged offense of
Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-
3242 (2) (b) (4).

As recounted supra, the evidence establishes that
Petitioner knowingly possessed methamphetamine. “A person
conmits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the third
degree if the person knowingly possesses any dangerous drug in
any smount.” HRS § 712-1243(1). ‘Thus, on remand of Count 9, the
court shall enter judgnent convicting Petitioner of Promoting a
Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, HRS § 712-1243(1).
Accordingly, the case is remanded for resentencing as the court
may, in its discretion, determine appropriate.

Glenn. choy for
peti tioner/defendant-

appellant, on the
application.

Paco retary ne

 

32