Title: State v. Lo.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAWUBRARY

‘+++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

000

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE DAVID W. LO, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I
and JACK MILLER,’ Respondent

 

 

 

No. 28775 3
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING o =
(caSE noe one+07-027523) SE
z Oo
OCTOBER 30, 2007 =
MOON, C.9., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.
Per Curiam. In this original proceeding, petition

State of Hawai'i (the prosecution) petitions this court for a
weit of mandamus directing respondent the Honorable David W. Lo,
judge of the District Court of the First Circuit (the respondent

judge), to vacate @ pretrial order granting respondent Jack

 

Miller's [hereinafter, defendant Miller) motion to compel
discovery in State v, Miller, Case No. 1DTC-07-017113. The
prosecution contends that the respondent judge exceeded his

lawful authority under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

 
+++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

Rule 16(d) (2007), quoted infra, by compelling the prosecution to
disclose to defendant Miller the calibration distances and
calibration locations for the laser unit used to cite defendant
Miller for excessive speeding, in violation of Hawai'i Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291C-105(a) (1) (Supp. 2006), quoted infra.

Based on the following, we hold that, because the
calibration information falls within the ambit of HRPP Rule
16(d), the respondent judge did not exceed his lawful authority
and that, therefore, the prosecution is not entitled to mandamus
relief.

1. BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2007, defendant Miller was cited for
excessive speeding, in violation of HRS § 291C-105(a) (1), for
allegedly driving 76 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone on
Kalanianaole Highway in Kailua, O'ahu, The speed was measured by

@ laser unit operated by Honolulu Police Department officer

 

Justin Wint!

Rs § 2910-208,

 

ntitled “Excessive Speeding," provides in relevant
pert:

No persen shall rive 6 motor vehicle at spe

   

‘The oppliceble state or county speed limit by
thirty miles per hoor er merel.J

 

jc) dnp person who viclates this section chell be
guilty of 2 petty misdeneaner |.)

 
1+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Defendant Miller scught discovery pursuant to HRPP Rule

16,? seeking disclosure by the prosecution of routine discovery

 

2 URPP Rule 26 provides:

(a) Applicability. Subject to subsection (d) of this
role, Siscovery uncer thie rule may be cbtesned in and is
LJnites to cases in which the Gefendant is charged with &
felony, and may commence upen the filing in the circuit
Court of an indictment or complaint

()  Dinclosure by the prosecution.

(2) Srecuceune or Warress Winwn Froseeorron’s Pesszssiow.
the prosecutor shall disclose te the defendant oF the
Eciehdant’s ettorney the fellowing material and information
Within the prosecutor’ s possession or contrel

(i)° Ehe'nanes and last. known aderesces of persons
hon the prosecutor intends to call ae witnesses in the
Presentation of the evidence in chief, together with any
Pelevant written or Fecerdes statenente, proviced that
Statements recorded by the prosecutor shell not be subject
to aisclotures

{iii any written or recorded statenents end the
suretance of any oral statenents nade by the defendant, o:
nade by 8 co-cefendant if intended to be used in s joint
Trial, together with the nanes and last known addresses of
persone whe witnessed the making of such statements:

Tali) ony reperte or statements of experts, which were
made in connection with the particular case or which the
prosecutor intende to introduce, or which are material to
The preperation of the defense and are specifically
Gessgnated in writing by defence counsel, inclusing results
of physical or nentel examinations and of scientific tests,
experiments, or comparisons:

(iv) any Books, papers, docunents, photographs, or
tangible cbjects which the prosecuter intends to introduce,
of uhich were obtained from or which belong to the
Sexcnasnt, or which are materiel to the preparation of the
Gefense and are specifically designated in writing by
Sefense counsel;

{v) 8 copy of any Hawai'i criminal record of the
defendant tnd, if #0 ordered by the court, a copy of any
crininal record of the defendant cutsice the State of
Nawas's

(vi) whether there hes been any electronic
surveillance laneluding wiretapping) of conversations te
which the defendant was a party oF occurring on the
Gefencant’® prenices;

(vis) ony Reterial or information which tends to
the guilt of the defen
or would tend to reduce the defendant's punishnent therefor.

(2)  Erecaceont er arruns Nor Mameaw Prceecurson’s Fosstssion,
pen written request of defense counsel and specific
Geclgnetion by defense counsel cf material of snforsation
hich woulé be Giscoverstle if in the possession or control

(cont snved..-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

   

 
 

*+** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

items’ and nine additional items concerning the laser unit used
by officer Winter. The prosecution disclosed the traffic crine
citation, but did not disclose the laser unit items. Defendant
Miller thereupon filed @ motion to compel discovery of the
following laser unit itens:

+ manufacturer's operation and maintenance
manuals;

+ certification documents:

+ police maintenance records:
+ manufacture and acquisition dates:

+ warranty documents;

+ laser readings:

+ firearm qualification test results for

officer Winte:

 

 

21. scontinves)
of the prosecutor and which ie the possession or contre} of
ether governnentel personnel, the prosecutor enall use
Giligent good faith efforts to cause such naterial oF
infornation to be nade available to defense counsel? end if
the prosecutor's efforts are unsuccessful the court shell)
issue suitable subpoenas er orcers to cause such material oF
information te be nade available to defense counsel

 

(4) Diteretionary disclosure. pon s showing of
materiality and if the request is veasensble, the court in
ke iscretion may require siscloeure a2 provides for in
this Rule 16 in eases cther than those in which the
Gefencant is charged with s felony, but now in cases
involving vielatiens.

   

 

 

(Emphases in criginal

2 the routine discovery materials included the police report or
citation, any police Photoaveph oF videotepe of the defendant, names end
eddresses of prosecution witnesses, eny prior criminal record cf the defendant
of prosecution witnese, and pelice dispatch log,

 

“te
+** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

+ fixed distance used to calibrate the subject

laser unit and location where the calibration
took place; and

+ delta distance used to calibrate the subject
laser unit and location where the calibration
took place.

Defendant Miller contended that the accuracy of the laser unit
was necessary to sustain 2 conviction for excessive speeding
based solely on the laser unit and that the laser unit items were
material to determining the accuracy of the subject instrument.
‘The prosecution opposed disclosure of all the laser unit items as
“not discoverable under [HRPP) Rule 16.”

‘The respondent judge, by order filed on October 4,
2007, granted the motion to compel discovery as to the laser unit
calibration distances and calibration locations, denied the
motion as to all other items, and directed the prosecution to
disclose the calibration information to defendant Miller. The
prosecution thereupon filed the instant petition for a writ of
mandamus, requesting that this court vacate the respondent
judge’s October 4, 2007 order compelling disclosure of the laser
unit calibration information.

I. STANDARD FOR DISPOSITION
“The extraordinary writ of mandamus is appropriate to

confine an inferior tribunal to the lawful

 

reise of its proper
jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Merslend v, Ames, 71 Haw. 304, 306,

788 P.2d 1281, 1283 (1980) (internal quotation marks and

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

citations omitted). “But mandamus may not be used to perform the

 

office of an appeal.” Id. Thus, this court must determine at

 

the outset whether a mandamus petitioner may have a remedy by way
of appeal or any other means of relief from the trial court's

action. Ids

But the mere fact thet other renedies are not
available has never in itself been sufficient Justification
fer mandemos, “and where... the trial juage hae
Giscretion to act, mancamie clearly will net lie to.
Snterfere with or control the exercise of that discretion,
even where the Jucge has acted erronecusly, unless the judge
has exceeded his lor her] jurisdiction, hae committed 8

2 nd manifest sbuse of discretion, or hee refused to
act ons fubject properly before the court where it was
Onder a legal cuty to act.

 

 

   

[ds at 307, 788 P.2d at 1283 (internal citations, brackets,
quotation marks, and ellipses omitted).
III. piscussroy

A. Whethe ution’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus
is Proper

As indicated above, this court must first determine
whether the prosecution, as the mandamus petitioner, may have a
remedy by way of appeal or any other means of relief from the
trial court’s action. Marsland, 71 Haw. at 306, 768 P.2d at
1283. It does not.

HRS § 641-13 (Supp. 2006) authorizes an appeal by the
prosecution, ina criminal case, from: (1) an order or judgment
sustaining 8 motion to dismiss an indictment or complaint or any
count thereof; (2) an order or judgnent dismissing @ case where

the defendant has not been put in jeopardy; (3) an order granting

 
+** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

_
a new trials (4) an order arresting judgment; (5) @ ruling on a
question of law adverse to the State, where the defendant wes
convicted and appeals from the judgments (6) 2 sentence deened to
be illegal; (7) @ pretrial ozder suppressing evidence; (8) an
order denying the State's request for @ protective order for non-
disclosure of witnesses for their personal safety under HRPP Rule
16(e) (4) (9) @ judgment of acquittal following @ jury verdict of
guilty: end (10) @ denial of authorization to intercept wire,
oral, or electronic communications. Clearly, under section
641-13, the prosecution is not authorized to appeal the
respondent judge’s October 4, 2007 pretrial discovery order.
Thus, the prosecution would be without @ renedy unless
extraordinary relief is granted. Consequently, we next examine
whether the respondent judge exceeded his authority under HRPP
Rule 16(é) thereby entitling the prosecution to mandamus relief.

8
ner HAPP Rule 16(d

Disclosure in criminal cases is governed by HRP Rule
16, which limits discovery “to cases in which the defendant is
charged with a felony,” HRPP Rule 16(a), except as provided in
HRPP Rule 16(d). See supra note 2. HRPP Rule 16(d) provides
that, “[ulpon 8 showing of materiality and if the request is
reasonable, the court in its discretion may require disclosure as

provided for in this Rule 16 in cases other than those in which

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

the defendant is charged with a felony, but not in cases
involving vielations.”

“thus, discovery ina misdeneancr . . . case may be
permitted by the trial judge '[u)pon @ showing of materiality and
if the request is reasonable,’ but only to the extent authorized
by HREP Rule 16 for felony cases(,]” iste, the item sought to be
cisclosed must be an enunerated iten under HREP Rule 16(b).
Marslang, 71 Haw. at 309, 788 P.2d at 1284 (first set of brackets
in original).

In a misdemeanor case, @ district judge acts beyond the

 

scope of his or her authority under HRPP Rule 16(d) -- and, thus,

 

exceeds his or her jurisdiction -- by ordering disclosure by the
prosecution of material end information net discoverable pursuant
to HREP Rule 16(b). See Maxsland, 71 Haw. at 313-14, 768 F.2d at
1286-87. In Maxsland, the district judge -- upon written request
by the defendant who was charged with the misdemeanor traffic

crime of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI)

compelled the prosecution to disclose forty-one items,

 

including information about the Intoxilyzer 4011S. Id, at 310
13, 788 P.26 at 1285-86. At the time of the DUI in Marslang,
HAPP Rule 16(b) distinguished between disclosure “upon written
request” and disclosure “without request.” Disclosure “upon
written request” was required by the prosecution as to those

items presently enumerated in HRPP ule 16(b) (i) through (v).

 
‘+*+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Disclosure “without request” was required by the prosecution as
to those itens presently enumerated in HRPP Rule 16(b) (vi) end
(vii). The distinction wes eliminated in 1993 when HRPP Rule
16(b) was amended to its present form. See supra note 2.

‘The prosecution in Marsland opposed disclosure of the
forty-one items and petitioned this court for mandamus relief.

We granted relief as to thirty-four of the forty-one items. Id.
at 305-06, 788 P.2d at 1262-83. We held that (1) the defendant
was not entitled, and the district judge was not authorized, to
order disclosure of the thirty-four items, including those
related to the intoxilyzer, inasmuch as the items did not fall
within the ambit of any of the categories now designated as (i)
through (v) and (2) discovery in a misdemeanor case that exceeded
the limits of discovery established by HRPP Rule 16 for felony
cases could not be justified under the rule. Id, at 313, 788
P.2d at 1286.

In the instant proceeding, the prosecution contends
that the laser unit calibration distances and calibration
Jocations are “beyond the scope of discovery as set forth by
[HRP] Rule 16 and Marslend.” The prosecution, thus, contends
that the respondent judge acted beyond the scope of his authority
under HREP Rule 16(d) and exceeded his jurisdiction by compelling
the prosecution te disclose the calibration information to

Gefendant Miller. However, information on the calibration

 

 
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

distances and calibration locations for the laser unit used by
officer Winter is materiel to challenging the accuracy of the
perticular laser unit, which, if determined to be inaccurate,
could result in a failure of proof that defendant Miller was
driving at 2 speed of 76 miles per hour. Such failure of proof
could result in an acquittal for the charged offense of excessive
speeding or a conviction for speeding as @ viclation.‘ that
being the case, information showing that the subject laser unit
-- as the sole basis for the excessive speeding charge -- was not
properly calibrated as to distance and location may be considered
to fall within the ambit of HRPP Rule 16(b) (1) (vii) as “material
or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant
as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the defendant's
punishnent therefor.”

The accuracy of the particular leser unit used by
officer Winter to cite defendant Miller on March 25, 2007 is
necessary to sustain a judgment for excessive speeding based

< Under HRS § 291¢-102 (Supp. 2006), entitled “Nenconplisnce with speed
Limit prohibited":
(a) A person violates this
river
(2) Actor venicle at a speed greater than the
naximun speed line other then provides in section 291C-205;

 

ction Sf the person

 

(2) A moter vehicle at @ speed ese than the minimum
speed Limit, where the naxinun GF ninimn Speed Limit ie
establishes’ by county ordinance or by effieial signe placed
by the director cf transportation on nighwsye under the
Girector’s juriediction.

 

 

 

 

 

Moreover, BRS § 291C-161(8) (Supp. 2006) provides that “[s]t is @
véolatien fer ny persen te viclate any of the provisions ef this chapter(.]*

 

 

10+
‘+++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

solely on the laser unit. See State v, Tailo, 70 Haw. 580, 582,
779 P.2d 11, 13 (1989) ("[C)ourts have . . . consistently held

that evidence of the accuracy of the particular radar unit is
necessary to sustain a conviction for speeding obtained solely by
radar.” (Citations omitted.)). Thus, the information on the
laser unit calibration distances and calibration locations is
material, the request for such information is reasonable, and
defendant Miller was entitled to disclosure of the information
pursuant to HRPP Rule 16(d). By ordering the disclosure of the
information, the respondent judge acted within the scope of his
authority under HRPP Rule 16(d) and did not exceed his
jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

Peter B. Carlisle,

Prosecuting. Attorney,

ona Lowell scotty fey

Deputy Prosecuting

Retorsey, for petitioner

fon the petition ec PRpBcrag
Puce nutes

a

Zz
Gorm «Dads

ane