Case Title: State v. Crowell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
No. 27008

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

STATE OF HAWAT'Z, Respondent-Plaintiff-Appellant,
ve.

WAYNE M. CROWELL,

Pet itioner-Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT oF AFPrALS@IZ Boy

(CR. NO. 02~1-0323) a = =

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Be 2 «43S

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Nakayama,, 33. $45 = °
‘and Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting, 3g|>
with whom Duffy, J., joins) 3

Fetitioner-defendant-appellant, Wayne M. Crowell
(“Crowell”) timely petitioned this court on May 23, 2007, for a
writ of certiorari to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’
(WICA") Febrvary 22, 2007 judgment on appeal, entered pursuant to
its January 17, 2007 sunmazy disposition order. Therein, the ICA
affirmed the first circuit court's’ judgment convicting him of
promoting @ dangerous drug in the second degree ("PDD2") (for
knowing distribution of methaphetamine),

Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 712-1242 (1) (c)

in violation of Hawai'i

(Supp. 1996),* and PpD2

 

} the Honerable Derrick H.M. Chan presides

 

At the time of the charged cffenses, HRS § 712-1242(2) provided in
relevant part

(1) A person connite the offense of proncting a dangerous érog in
the Eebend degree if the person knowingly?

iti Potees!

 

1s cne or nore preparations, compounds, mixtures,

 
  

herein, morphine, or cocaine

or any
ye salts, isomer’, end

Its ef

 

US Ghe-fourtn cunce er nore, cont:
cengercus dros: er
te

 

ing any
Distributes eny cangerous drug in any ancunt
   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.
(for knowing possession of one-eighth ounce or more of
methamphetamine), in violation of HRS § 712-1242(1) (b) (4) (Supp.
1996).? The ICA also affirmed the trial court's imposition of an
extended twenty-year sentence under HRS § 706-662(1) and (4)
(Supp. 2001), with @ mandatory minimum of three years and four
months as a repeat offender.

On June 21, 2007, this court accepted Crowell’s
application, in which he argued that the ICA gravely erred by
holding that

detective John Shaw were irrelevant and therefore, inadmissible;

 

(2) the prior bad acts of the supervising

(2) the circvit court did not err in failing to declare &
mistrial; (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction for knowingly possessing an aggregate weight, of one-
eighth ounce or more of methamphetamine; and (4) the circuit
court lawfully imposed extended terms of imprisonment under ERS §
706-662(1) and (4).

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs

+ see footnote 2, supra.
+ HRS § 108-662 provided in pertinent part
A convicted defendant may be subject to an extended term of

Imprisonment under section 706-661, if the convicted defendant
satisfies one or more of the following criteria

 

(2) The defendant is 6 persistent offender whose inprisonment for
an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. The
Court shall not make this finding Unless the defendant has
previously been convicted of twe felonies committed st different
Eines when the defendant was eighteen years ef age or older.

(4) The defendent is 2 moltiple offender whore criminal acticns
were so extensive that © sentence of imprisonment for én extendes
fern is necessary for protection of the public. The coort shall
not make this finding Unless:

 

 

(2) The aes being sentenced for two or more
felonies cr is elready uncer sentence cf inpriscnment for
felony...

  

2
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that:

(1) The ICA did not gravely err by affirming the
circuit court's exclusion of Crowell’s proffered Hawai'i Rules of
Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 404(b) (Supp. 2005) evidence attempting to
prove (a) the supervising detective for the drug sting, John
Shaw's (“Detective Shaw") alleged propensity to engage in
fraudulent activity, and (b) that prior to Crowell’s alleged
offenses, Detective Shaw attempted to extort $400 per month from
the initial target of the sting, Farley Inovejas, inasmuch as it
is irrelevant to Crowell’s charges.? Any probative value of the
evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, and
therefore, is inadmissible under HRE Rule 404 (b) ;*

(2) The ICA did not gravely err in affirming the
cireust court's denial of Crowell’s motion for mistrial, inasmuch

examination of

 

as the State of Hawai'i's (“prosecution”) eros
Crowell regarding the integrity of the officers involved in the
Anvestigation did not open the door to Crowell's excluded HRE
Rule 404 (b) evidence. While the prosecution's questioning may
have been related to other detectives’ motives against Crowell,
it was not related to Crowell’s excluded evidence regarding
Detective Shaw's motives, and therefore, did not prejudice

Crowell's right to a fair trial;

 

+ the evidence se not relevant to show Detective Shaw's “proof of
motive, opportunity, intent, preparetion, plan, kncwledse, identity, nodss
Sperands, er abeence of nistaxe of accicent.”” See WRE Role 4O4(b). ("Evigence

 

 

oF ether crinec, wrenge, cr acts if net saniesible fo prove the character of 2
‘aces. )-

 

Eexkan in erder to shew action in conformity therewith.” (Enph

 

«Generally, HAE Rule 404(b) prior bed acts e
when it ie 1) relevant and 2) more probetive then prejucicie:
Hobingcn, 78 Hewel's €8, 472, 902 P.zd 2268, 1292 (1885) citations onitt

     

    

3
+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

(3) The ICA did not gravely err in affirming Crowell’s
conviction of PPD2 for knowing possession of an aggregate weight
of one-eighth ounce or more of methamphetamine, insofar as
there wae substantial evidence to support the conviction: and

(4) The ICA gravely erred in affirming the circuit
court’s imposition of extended twenty-year sentences upon Crowell
under HRS § 706-662(1) and (4), in light of this court's recent
opinion, State v, Naugsoteca, No. 26657 (Haw. Oct. 1, 2007)
(holding that the extended sentencing scheme in HRS $§ 706-661
and 706-662 is unconstitutional). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT (1) the ICA's
February 22, 2007 judgnent, affirming the circuit court's
imposition of the extended term sentence, is vacated, and the
case is renanded to the cixcuit court for resentencing, and (2)
the judgnent is affirmed in all other respects.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 2, 2007.

 

Taryn R, Tomasa,
Deputy Public Defender,

for petitioner-defendant~
appellant wayne M. Crowell
on the application