Title: State v. Macomber

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

No. 27320

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HaWar’ z
aS

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

    

 

  

 

STATE OF WHAT, Flainestt-Appetiee SHES
va. a
SOSEY IAIOWA MACOMBER, Defendant-Appelienl =
APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
oe, No, 05-1-0286K)
‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(ey: Moon, C.J., Levinson Nakeyene, Recbe, and Duffy, 99.)
Defendant-appellant Bobby Laicha Maconber {hereinafter
swacenber"] appeals fron the third circult court's april 26, 2005
Jadgnent convicting him of the offenses of first degree burglary,
n violation of Hawai'i Revised statutes, (hereinafter “HRS") §
1708-610, first degree robbery, in viclation of HRS § 708-840,"
700-010 macpiary 1a the fines degen. (11 8 person
$700-040 nasbery in tne fiset degree, (1) A person comits

ja), The person ettenpte te kL22 ancther, or intenticnelly

 

aati
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

third degree theft, in violation of HRS § 708-832,” kidnapping,
in violation of HRS § 707-720, use of a firearm in the

 

rious

 

or knowingly inflicts or attempts to inflict
bodily" injuty upon ancther: or
(b) The person ie armea with e dangerous instrument and:
(3) “the person uses force ageinst the person of
anyone present wth intent to overcome that
bereon’® physical resistance of physical power
(4) The person threatens the imminent use of force
agesnse the person of anyone who is present with
intent te compel acquiescence to the taking of
of escaping with the property .
(2) _ Ae uses in thie section, “dangerou instrument” means
ony firearn, whether loaded oF not, and whether operable OF not,
‘or other weapon, cevice, instrument, material, or substance,
whether animate cr inanimate, which’ in the manner st it used oF
Threatened to be used is capable of producing death oF serious
bodily injury.
(3) Rébbery in the first degree se @ cl

 

 

 

A felony,

 

% RS § 708-832 (1953) provides as follows:

$708-932 Theft in the’ third degree. (1)' A person'connite
the offense of theft in the third degree if the person commits

 

 

these .
(a) Of property or services the value of, which exceeds
5100; er
(b) OF gasoline, diesel fuel or other reléted petroleun
Products used as propellants or any valve not
Exceeding £200.
(2) Theft inthe thire degree ts © misdemesrior.
‘HRS § 707-720 (1993) provides a¢ follows
'$707-720 Kidnapping. (1) A person commits the offense of

kicnepping if the persen intentionally or knowingly restrsins
another person with intent

a)" Held that person for reneom or reuard;

{b) Use that person ae a shield or hortagey

(el Facilitate the commission of a felony er f2ight

thereafter:

(a) Infllet bedity injury upon that person or subject that

person to = sexcel offense;

fe) Terrorize that person cr a third person: o

(i) Interdere with the performance of sny governmental or

political fonction.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (2), kidnapping is
class A felony.

(3) Tha prosecution fer kidnapping, st Le a defense which
reguces the offense tes ciate £ felony thet the defencent
voluntarily released the victim, alive and not suffering from

tie) bodily shjury, in safe place prior to

 

 

 

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
conmission of a felony, in violation of HRS § 134-6(a),* and
impersonating @ law enforcement officer in the first degree, in
violation of HRS § 710-1016.6. Maconber presents the following
points ef error on appeal: (1) the circuit court failed to
determine whether his statements, made while in police custody,
were voluntary; and (2) even if the circuit court concluded that
his statements were voluntary, its conclusion was erroneous
insofar as (a) the police violated HRS § 603-9(2) by refusing to
accommodate his request for counsel, (b) his fifth amendment

rights were violated because he was questioned while being held

 

-6(a) (Supp. 2003) provides as follows 7

 

ta) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly carry on the
person or have within the person's innediate contrel or
Ententionally use cr threaten to use a firesrm while engaged in
the conniteion of s separete felony, whether the firearm was
Icedes or net, and whether operable or not? provided that # person

 

‘not be provecutes uncer this subsection where the separate

felony ie
db felony offence cthernige defined by tHe chepter:

) The felsny offense of reckless endengering in the
Hirst degree under section 107-713;

(3) The felony offense of terrersetic threstening in the
Hirst degree uncer section [707-726(1) (ally {707
JAE(1) (iT, ana [707~716(2) (a) ]; oF,

(4) The felony’ offenses of criminal property damage in the
first cegree under section 708-820 sna criminal
property denage in the seccnd degree under section

 

 

 

 

 

Hoete2s anc the firearm is the instrument oF means by
which the property danage is ceused.
(Brackets in original
«HRS § 720-1026.€ (1993) previces as Follows:

§710-1026.6 Impersonating © law enforcenent officer in the
faret degree. il) A perech commits the offense of smpersonsting &
au enforcenent officer in the first cegree if, with intent to
deceive, the person pretence to be # law enforcement officer end
Geared with's fizesrm,

12)" “Tnpersenstang
degree ie a clase C felony.

 

  

 

enforcenent cfficer in the firet

 
 

'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WE:

 

in the cell block without proper Miranda warnings, and (c) he was
effectively denied his right to counsel when the police
interrogated him outside of his counsel's presence

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to *
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that
Macomber’s opening brief fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Proceduge [hereinafter
“HRAP") Rule 28(b) (4) (iii) (2005) insofar as it fails to identify
“where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the
manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention of,
the court or agency.” The circuit court may thus be affirmed on
that ground alone, See Onaka v. Onaka, 2006 WL 2500587, *13
(August 30, 2006) ("{W]e decline to canvas the record to verify
whether [the appéllant] appropriately preserved her points of
error on appeal by making a timely objection to the challenged
actions, and her appellate arguments are deened waived.”);
Kienker v, Sauer, 110 Hawai'i 97, 104 n.12, 129 P.3d 1125, 1132
n.12 (2006) ("The appellate courts are not obligated to search
the record to crystallize the parties’ arguments.”).

The foregoing violation notwithstanding, we further
hold that Nacomber's appellate arguments are without merit
inasmuch as: (1) the circuit court complied with its duty’ to

ensure the voluntariness of Macomber’s confession by granting the

 

Ses State v. Gears, 62 Hau. 198, 195-200, 600 F.2d 1142, 1143
(2979) (1a) tFLal Judge must Bake @ threshold ‘ation of the
voluntariness ef = confess: der it.)
bite, 1 Maw. App.

Gory to ceternine the
Fregence cf the jury and pricr to the 5

  

      
 

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
prosecution’s “Notion To Determine Voluntariness Of Defendant's *

Statement”; and (2) Macomber’s confession was not obtained in

 

violation of his statutory and constitutional rights inasmuch
(a) assuming, arauende, that the more than twenty-four-hour delay
violated HRS § 803-9(2) (1993)," Macomber failed to demonstrate,

 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that it contributed to his
decision to confess,* (b) Macomber was adequately advised of his
constitutional rights on October 6, 2003, and he does not argue

that the warnings became stale" by the time the police attempted

© RS § 803-942) (1983) provides that

 

[1)t held be untawfud in any case of
[tio unseaconatly refuse or fail to make a reasonsble effort,
where the arrested perscn so requests end prepeys the cost of the
message, te send a telephone, cable, .oF wireless message through =
Police officer or another than the arrested person to the counsel
Ce member ef the arvested person's familyl-

 

 

 

 

+ See State v. Ecards, 96 Howas's 224, 239, 30 P.36 238, 283 (2001)
(oimnsie we he i the police did not use reasonable efforts to

contact counsel, Defendent failed to prove, by a
preponderance of evidence, that her stetements were ‘iilegaily cbtained."™");
Gia State ve Ababa, 101 Hawai'i 205, By 65 F-38 186, 164-65 (2003) ("On
the Fecora, thei ‘vidence to * preponderant degree... that the
Mielation of HRS §§ 80S-8(2) and €03-9(4) “ultinatery hed én adverse impact on
“[petitioner]’s icsting Eakards, 96 Hawai'i ct 239, 30
Piid-at 255.) (Brackets sn original.)

  

 

 

   

w S86, s.ca, United States v. Rodriques=Ereciads, 399 F.3¢ 1118,
1128 (9th cir- 2008) (“The Suprene Court hes eschewed per se rules mandating
thet a suspect be revadvieed of hie rights in certein fixed situations in
favor of # more flexible eproach focusing on the tetality of the
Eircunstences.") (Referencing 455 0.5. 42, 48-45 (2562)
(per curser) }s ‘S96 Paid 241, 246-47 {34 Cir. 2008)
[S[tyhe questicn whether a tine Japee renders Uirands warnings ‘stale’ may be
recuced €6 answering the questions’ (1) At the time the Mizanda warnings were
Provided, cig the defendant know ard nderetang hie righte? (2) dic anyening
Eccur between the warnings and the statenent, whether the passage of tine or
Sther intervening event, which renceree the defendant unsble to consider fully
ine properiy the effect cf an exercise cf weiver of those rights before making
Svetatenent to law enfercenent cfficers’")” (citing United states ¥. Veegues,
Geo F.Supp. 171, 377 0. Pe. 1888) .).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 
 

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

 

to execute the search warrant on his person on October 7, 2003,"

and (c) Macomber’s fifth amendment right to counsel was not

violated insofar as the police did not engage in substantive

questioning until he changed his mind and waived his

constitutional rights. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s April 26,

2005 judgment is affirmed.
DATE:

on the briefa:

 

Honolulu, Hawai's,

Brian J. De Lina,
of Crudele & De Lima
for defendant-appellant
Bobby Laicha Maconber

cynthia T. Tai,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for, plaintiff-appellee
State of Hawai'i

 

waives.)

See WRAP Rule 26(b)(7) (2008)

hold thet an accused,
police eniy through count
jethorities unt] counsel hi

  

 

   

police.7] (Enpnasis ecdea!
i272, izbe (2004)
guesticnes until ccuneel hae been ace
snitieten further cenminicetion, exchanges:
pelice.") (Citetions omitted

 

 

 

See Lovarcs vs arizens, 482 0.5,
eving expressed hie’ desire to deal with the
net subject te further

 

November 13, 2006.

a
-
Pa OS astuyarne

boas

Gone £. Doig 1h +

Pointe not argued may be deemed

477, 486-85 (1981) (*Ke further

nterregation by the

 

   

 

SNewei't 331, 142, 9¢ P30

("in other words, once an accuses her expreased his cesire
h police interrogators cnly through counsel, he canner, be further
Tebie te hin,

Unless the accutes

er conversations with the