The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-07-31

The clause beginning, "and hi
shall have the right to meet the wit
nesses who are produced against
him." ETC., confers this right upor
those who are charged either witt
an indictable offense or one within
the summary jurisdiction of Police
or District Justice.
This was the view of the Legisla-
ture in enacting the Penal Code in
1850 Chapter II. of the Code enacts
as law the provisions of Article Z of
the Constitution in separate sec
tions, and applies the right to me ct
witnesses face to face to the trial OF
any person on the charge of amy
cfiense," indictable or not.
We agree with the contention of
the counsel for the defendants that
the constitutional right of ali &C
cused person "to meet the witnesses
who are produced against him face
to face" is not complied with unless
he is in some way made to under
stand their evidence, in order to
enable him to avail himself of his
further expressed constitutional
right of cross examining these wit
nesses, and also to meet their evil
dence with his own proofs. Although
the origin of the constitutional re-
quirement that an accused person
shall be confronted with the wit
nesses against him was to prevent
the taking of dispositions against an
accused person in his absence, he
having no opportunity of hearing
them or cross-examining them, the
mere personal presence of the wit
nesses before the accused would not
obviate this, if their testimony was
given in language not understood
by him.
But this article of the Constitu-
ton also says that he may, by him
self or his counsel. at his election,
examine the witnesses" etc. Who
ever, by the election of the accused,
undertakes the exercise of this right,
whether it be the accused himself or
his counsel, has right to know
what the evidence of the witnesses
produced against the accused is.
For this reason, as well as because
the Count must understand the evil
dence, Interpreters are provided in
all our courts of justice. But if the
accused has counsel who under
stands the evidence, whether directly
from the witnesses or through an in
terpreter, the constitutional require
ment is complied with, though the
accused himself may not understand
it. 1t is to be presumed that coun
sci will communicate with client
We do not deem it the duty of |
the Court, after the evidence for the
prosecution has all been adduced, to
have the evidence translated to the |
accused from his (the Judge's) |
notes, it not having been asked for
as it came from the witnesses.
The right which an accused has
of knowing what the witnesses say
against him is absolute when he has
no counsel. When he has counsel
who understands the testimony, but
does not himself understand the
the Court will not refuse.
if requested, to have the evidence
to him but this request
must be made seasonably, and the
accused valves it if he allows the
case of the prosecution to be put in
it. 1t is unreasonable to
ask the Court to have its notes,
which are often fragmentary and
taken, to be interpreted
as the whole evidence against the
accused.
For these reasons we override the
exceptions and sustain the decision
Of the court below.
A. P. Peterson, Deputy Attorney
for prosecution w. A.
Kinney for defendants.
Honolulu, July IL, 1888.