Case Title: State v. Waialae

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
aw UBRARY

‘senor FOR PUBLICATION***

ee

No. 27252

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'E

ee
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee

IOKEPA WATALAE, Defendant-Appellant —%

  

qa

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(FC-CR NO, 05-1-1016)

Lisi }2uuH sue

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(py: Moon, CoJ., Levinson, Nakayama,
‘Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Tokepa Waialae (Defendant) appeals
from the April 19, 2005 judgment (the judgment) of the family
court of the first circuit’ (the court) convicting him of Abuse

of Family and Household Members, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)

 

§ 709-906 (Supp. 2005). On appeal, Defendant contends that

(1) the court improperly refused to admit evidence relating to a

! The Honorable Reynaldo 0. Gravity presided.

2 await Revised Statutes (HAS) § 709-906, entitled “Abuse of
tantly and household menbers; penalty,” states in relevant part:

(2) Te shail be unlawful for any person, singly or in
concert, to physically abuse 2 family cr household menber,
Seite fefuse cenpliance with the lawful order of a police
Sktice! unser subsection (4). The police, in investigating
Shy complaint of abuse cf 2 fantly or household mender may,
sBka request, transport the abused person to a hospital oF
safe shelter’

Tor the purposes of this section, “fanily or household
member eens Spouses oF reciprocal beneficiaries, former
Spouses of reciprocsl beneficiaries, persons who have =
CRI In commons parents, children, persons related by
Consanguinity, and persone jointly residing or formerly
Feciding in the sane dwelling unit.

 

 

 

 
‘+**NOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*
telephone message’ left by the complaining witness (CW) for the

Defendant and, thus, violated Defendant’s right to a complete
defense and his due process right to a fair trial under article

2, sections § and 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution and the Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and (2) the court abused its discretion by admitting
testimony that the CW obtained a temporary restraining order
(TRO) after the alleged incident of abuse inasmuch as it was not
probative of the issue of guilt and served only to unduly
prejudice the jury against the Defendant.

Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (the prosecution)
answers that (1) the court properly excluded evidence of the
message the CW left on Defendant's cellular telephone a few days
before trial, (2) the court did not err in allowing the cw to
testify that two days after the incident she obtained a TRO
against Defendant, and (3) any error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt.

 

As to Defendant’s first issue, article 1, section 14 of
the Hawai'i Constitution and the sixth amendment to the United

States Constitution guarantee defendants, inter alia, the right

 

> pefense counsel read a transcript of the message, which stated, in
pertinent part

You know what, fucking dumy, you gonne believe whatever you
Fucking think is fucking good fer you cause you know what,
from now on, yoo Not going see your fucking kids, and
‘Thorsday, I don't know why the fuck I'went Lie for you, but
ow 1 gotta call the fucking prosecutor and fucking make uP
a whole big story that you wen threaten me for fucking tell
them that. Fucking dumb bitch, and you not going to see
your kids cause 1 don’t need you fo’ watch then, T can have
Eoneboay else fof watch then.

2

 
‘*¢NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

 

to “be confronted with the witnesses against” him or her. See
State v. Balisbisana, 83 Hawai'i 109, 114-15, 924 P.2d 1215,

1220-21 (1996) (holding that an accused’s right to demonstrate
the bias or motive of a prosecution witness is guaranteed by
article 1, section 14 of the Hawai'i Constitution and the sixth
amendment to the United States Constitution, and that “the main
and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the
opponent the opportunity of cross examinatio(n]”).

‘The court ruled that the message was inadmissible
because it was not relevant and would be “very confusing” to the
jury. However, based on the record, Defendant was denied the
ability to effectively cross-examine the CW to establish “a
record from which to argue why [the witness] might have been
biased.” Davis v, Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318 (1974). Whether the
message established any bias, interest, or motive was properly
for the jury to determine.

‘The court also ruled that the message was not relevant
or admissible under Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 609.1
because (1) the message did not indicate bias, interest or motive
that would have caused the CW to fabricate the charges, (2) the

message was not relevant, and (3) even if the message w

 

relevant, the message might be confusing to the jury. As
Defendant asserts, the prosecution's case relied on the jury
believing the CW’s rendition of the events that transpired
between her and Defendant and the cause of her injures. The CW's
credibility, then, was an issue in the case and the message was

3
‘+**NOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

relevant to that issue. The message revealed, at the very least,
some aninosity on the part of the CW towards the Defendant, which
could certainly amount to “bias, interest, or motive” to
fabricate. See supra note 3. The probative value of the phone
call message was not substantially outweighed by confusion of the
issues because the Cli was available and testified at trial. The
risk of confusing the jury was slight in that the prosecution, as
it argued, would have had the opportunity to refute Defendant's
view of the message or to explain the message or the context in
which it was made.

As to issue two, Defendant argues that he was denied a
fair trial because evidence that the CW obtained a TRO two days
after the incident (1) was in violation of an in limine ruling,
(2) was irrelevant, (3) vas highly prejudicial, and
(4) improperly bolstered the cis credibility. Based on the
record, it is concluded that testimony concerning the TRO was
snadnissible

As to the prosecution's third argument, viewing the
record as a whole, either (1) the denial of Defendant's right of
confrontation with respect to cross-examination of the CW
concerning the message left by her or (2) admitting evidence that
2 TRO was obtained following the incident would establish “a

reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to the
ssemor FOR PUBLICATION***
oe
conviction.” State v. Halls, 103 Hawai'i 89, 100, 79 P.3d 1263,
1274 (2003). Therefore,

In accordance with Hawai"l Rules of Appellate Frocedure
rule 35, and after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and duly considering and analyzing the
law relevant to the argunents and issues raised by the parties,

If 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the court's April 19, 2005
judgment, from which the appeal is taken, is vacated, and the
case is remanded for @ new trial

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai"l, March 21, 2006.
on the briefs: Gp
Stephen T. Niwa, Deputy

Public Defender, for
defendant-appeliant. Alita nnsr—

city & County of Honolulu,
for plaintiff-appellee. Go <n

Gone, Outi