Case Title: State v. Alvarez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LiaRARY

s#* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
wo. 26725
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

a

STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Plaintif£-Appellant-Petitioner,

   
  
 
  

aad

LORNA ALVAREZ,
Defendant ~Appellee-Respondent .

T:O1HY 92 G35 300

  

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CR. NO, 02-21-0419)

(By: Moon, C.J-, Levinson, and Nakayama, JJ.,
and Acoba, J., dissenting, with whom Duffy, J., joins)

on January 20, 2006, the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner

 

state of Hawai'i (hereinafter, “the prosecution”) filed an
application for writ of certiorari ex officio in the circuit
court of the third circuit, requesting that this court review the
memorandum opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in
State v. Alvarez, No. 26725 (December 21, 2005) (hereinafter, the
wrca’s opinion"), affirming the order of the circuit court of the
third circuit, filed on June 28, 2004, granting the defendant-
appellee-respondent Lorna Alvarez's motion to suppress
statements. In its application for certiorari, the prosecution
argues that the ICA erred in “establishing a ‘bright-line’ rule
that creates ‘sustained and coercive’ questioning anytime [sic]
an interviewee is asked a question twice.”

upon carefully reviewing the record and the application
for weit of certiorari and having given due consideration to the

arguments advanced and the issues raised, we reverse the ICA's
4#¢ NOT FOR PUBLICATION **
becenber 21, 2005 memorandum opinion and vacate in part the
circuit court's June 28, 2004 order and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this order.
‘The circuit court's uncontested findings of fact (FOFS)

 

set forth the relevant sequence of events as follow:
20. OFFICER FELICIANO asked DEFENDANT if DION ALVAREZ

 

DEFENDANT responded... "No, he not here,
ronore wore he Was ip Puna"?

‘28: OFFICER FELICIANO requested permission to enter
‘the nome and DEFENDANT refused entry:

‘2a. OFFICER FELICIANO then left the front porch area
and conferres with Detective Evangelista in the front of
DEFENGANT’ 5 home:

 

32! "DETECTIVE EVANGELISTA . . . questioned DEFENDANT about
Drow ALVAREZ:

44) “poring the questioning by DETECTIVE EVANGELISTA,
DEFENDANT informed DETECTIVE EVANGELISTA, "No, you can't
Cone into ny house. He's not here. se" in Puna,”

Se: “berecrive BVANGELISTA requested permission to
search the hone snd OEFENDANT denied same

‘abo uring the questioning of DEFENDANT, DETECTIVE
tevancetisra} told DEFENDANT that Sf ne had to’ seek a search
Marrent and DION was found in DEFENDANT’ s home, DEFENDANT
(SUIS be Srrested for sindering Prosecution;

35. "DEFENGANT cold DETECTIVE EVANGELISTA, “well, go
do that then.”

We agree in part with the position taken by ICA
sociate Judge Fujise in her concurring and dissenting opinion,
specifically, that Sergeant Evangelista’s statenent to Alvarez

that “if he had to seek a search warrant and Dion was found in

 

[her] home, (Alvarez) could be arrested for hindering
prosecution” was coercive and that Alvarez’s subsequent response
was properly suppressed. Concurring and dissenting opinion et 1
(capitalization altered).

As the circuit court concluded, “Office Feliciano’ s

questioning was reasonably designed to confirm or dispel as
##¥ NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
briefly as possible and without any coercive connotations his
suspicions of criminal activity and therefore Mixandal vs
Arizona, 364 U.S. 436 (1966),] [rlights were not required.”
ica’ opinion at 5. Similarly, Sergeant Evangeliste’s question
to Alvarez regarding whether her son Dion was in her home was
designed for informational purposes only. At the tines Officer
Feliciano questioned Alvarez and Sergeant Evangelista first

reiterated the same questions, Alvarez was neither in custody nor

interrogated. State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai'i 107, 34 F.3d 1006
(2001); State vs Patterson, 59 Haw. 357, $81 F.2d 752 (1978).

there was no reason to foresee that Officer Feliciano’s questions
or Sergeant Evangelista’s reiterated preliminary questions would
git an incriminating response from Alvarez. Thus, Sergeant
pvangelista’s first inguiry, described in FOF No. 32, was
speasonably designed to confirm or dispel as briefly as possible
and without coercive connotations his suspicions of criminal
activity,” such that Sergeant Evangelista was not required to
inform Alvarez of her constitutional rights against self-
incrimination and to counsel, as mandated by Mixanda and its
progeny, state v, Ah Loo, 94 Hawai'i 207, 10 P.3d 726 (2000).

tie hold that Sergeant Evangelista’s statement to
ivarez that “if he had to seek @ search warrant and Dion was
found in [her] hone, (Alvarez) could be arrested for hindering
prosecution” was coercive and that Alvarez’s subsequent response
was properly suppressed. ‘Therefore, Alvarez’s subsequent

response recorded in FOF No. 37 a8 “well, go do that then” wi

 

properly suppressed. Inversely, the circuit court’s suppression
44+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*
of Alvarez’s statement in FOF No. 34 that “No, you can’t come
into my house. He's not here. He's in Puna,” was erroneously
suppressed. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Decenber 21, 2005
memorandum opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals is
reversed and the June 28, 2004 order of the circuit court is
vacated in part with respect to Alvarez’s response to Detective
Evangelista’s inquiry, recorded in FOF Wo. 34, the effect that
“No, you can't come into my house. He’s not here. He’s in
Puna." Accordingly, the present matter is renanded for further
proceedings consistent with this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 28, 2006.

Darren W.K. Ching,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

for the plaintiff-appellant= q
petitioner, State of Hawai'i, fpr
on the weit

NN

Pui Oraneyane