Title: State v. Beyer

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

822 P.2d 519 (1991) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanford Brian BEYER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 15208. Supreme Court of Hawaii. December 20, 1991. *520 Theodore Y.H. Chinn, Office of Public Defender, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant. Charlotte J. Duarte, Department of the Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and PADGETT, HAYASHI, WAKATSUKI and MOON, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for abuse of a family or household member under HRS § 709-906. On the morning the case was called for trial, it appeared that the complaining witness was not present although, according to the prosecutor's statement, she had been served with a subpoena by the State. The State moved for the issuance of a bench warrant and the defense moved for a dismissal without prejudice. The court denied the bench warrant and granted a dismissal without prejudice but then, when the State said it was willing to proceed without the complaining witness, the court set aside the dismissal. The only witness to testify was the investigating police officer. He stated that he arrived on the scene pursuant to a call, and found the appellant out in the yard in front of the dwelling, screaming and yelling at the complaining witness. A number of articles of clothing and personal property were in the yard. The appellant was loud and raucous, and the police told him to calm down. They then approached the woman on the porch, the complaining witness, and she ran into the dwelling. They knocked on the door, went into the dwelling, and found her sitting on the bed. She came out into the living room and smoked two cigarettes. At first, she was extremely nervous and upset and would not answer the police officer's questions but, after 10 or 15 minutes and smoking the two cigarettes, she calmed down and stated that she and the appellant had been living together for about four months, that he had not paid his share of the rent, that he had disappeared for several days and so she threw his belongings out in the yard, and that later, while she was sleeping, the appellant came in and struck her in the face. The first issue raised on this appeal is whether the officer's statements as to what the complaining witness told him should have been excluded under the hearsay rule. The State argues, and the judge below ruled, that the evidence was admissible as an excited utterance. HRE 803(b)(2) provides: The Commentary to this rule states: In A. Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual § 803-2B(2), at 341 (The Michie Co. 1990), the author states, with respect to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule: The author goes on to cite: In this case, the first test of being reasonably contemporaneous was not met. The time when the abusive incident occurred was not established, and the responses to police interrogation occurred after a substantial period of time had expired after the officer arrived at the scene. Nor was the second test met. The statement was not proximately caused by the excitement generated from the event, but as a result of questioning by the police after they had calmed the person down. The third test was also not met because the statements were not made without opportunity for deliberation or other influence. Thus, the court below erred in ruling that the complaining witness' statements made to the officer, in the circumstances of this case, qualified as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The court below should have granted the State's request to issue a bench warrant for the complaining witness. By denying the bench warrant and denying a dismissal without prejudice, upon the State's expressed willingness to proceed without the complaining witness, the court violated appellant's right to confrontation under article I, section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii applies as fully to family abuse as to any other criminal charge. Unfortunately family abuse cases frequently produce a situation where the complaining witness is extremely reluctant to testify, with the result that mere service of a subpoena upon the complaining witness will many times not result in the witness' appearance at trial, and bench warrants may be necessary if the complaining witness is to be brought before the court at the time of trial. While it is true that mere absence of the complaining witness, where there have been vigorous and appropriate steps to procure the complaining witness' presence at trial, does not necessarily constitute a violation of the right of confrontation if the out-of-court statements of the complaining witness have been made in such circumstances as to be so reliable that cross-examination does not appear necessary or there has been an opportunity for cross-examination, State v. Rodrigues, 7 Haw. App. 80, 742 P.2d 986 (1987), that is not the case here. Mere service of a subpoena on the complaining witness did not establish her unavailability, and the statements *522 adduced through the police officer were neither admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, nor sufficiently trustworthy as to eliminate the need for cross-examination. Thus, appellant's right, under our Constitution, to confront the principal witness against him, was violated. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.