Title: State v. Richie
Citation: 960 P.2d 1227
Docket Number: 19934
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: August 3, 1998

960 P.2d 1227 (1998) 88 Hawai`i 19 STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Irvin RICHIE, Defendant-Appellant No. 19934. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. June 25, 1998. As Amended August 3, 1998. *1231 Daphne E. Barbee, on the briefs, for defendant-appellant. Erick T.S. Moon, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee. Ricky R. Damerville, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae State of Hawai`i. David A. Johnson, on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union. Before KLEIN, Acting C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ., and BLONDIN,Circuit Judge, in place of MOON, C.J., Recused. RAMIL, Justice. Defendant-Appellant Carl Irvin Richie appeals from the judgment convicting him of promoting prostitution in the second degree, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1203 (1993), and unlawful ownership or operation of business, in violation of HRS § 842-2(2) (1993).[1] For the following reasons, we affirm Richie's conviction of promoting prostitution in the second degree, but we reverse his conviction of unlawful ownership or operation of business. Testimony at trial revealed the following. Officer Alfredo Villanueva, an undercover officer with the Vice Division, Morals Detail, of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) testified that he came to the island of Kauai on September 15, 1996 to assist the Kauai Police Department (KPD) in a prostitution investigation. Officer Villanueva and his partner, Officer Jensen Okagawa, were to pose as construction contractors who had just finished a job and were having a bachelor party. On the night of September 16, 1995, the two officers set up their operation in a condominium. In addition to the two officers, four construction workers were present. At approximately 8:05 p.m., Richie arrived at the condominium and handed Officer Villanueva a written contract. The contract provided for three women to perform for one hour in return for $750. The officer paid Richie the $750. Richie then brought up his stereo equipment and three women: Monica Alves (introduced as "Monique"), Riaana Hernandez (introduced as "Celeste"), and Fania Hicks (introduced as "Baby Bear"). A fourth female, Tina Silva, assisted Richie. Richie started the music and the women came out of the bedroom where they had been changing. The women were dressed in negligees, and as they danced around the *1232 room, they began taking their clothes off. The first person to approach Officer Villanueva was Alves. The officer testified: During a break between dancing sessions, Officer Villanueva approached Richie and conversed with him: At the end of the performance, the officers gave a prearranged signal over the listening devices they were wearing. Then, KPD officers entered the condominium and arrested Richie and the four women.[2] The prosecution also called HPD undercover officer Jensen Okagawa as a witness. Officer Okagawa testified regarding his own experiences at the party on September 16, 1995: Officer Okagawa also testified that during the break between sessions, he observed Officer Villanueva approach Richie and converse with him. Officer Okagawa then went over to the two men. During the conversation, Officer Okagawa pointed to Alves: Later, when Officer Okagawa was cross-examined about the conversation with Richie, the following exchange occurred: The prosecution also called KPD Officer Gerald Kim as a witness. Officer Kim testified that during his investigation of Richie's business, Fanta-See Express, he recovered billing records for advertisements placed in the Kauai Shopper and KONG Radio. He also testified that Richie had applied for and received a general excise tax license in his name doing business as Fanta-See Express. Officer Kim also recovered a number of documents entitled "entertainer independent contractor contract" and "application for employment" that had been completed by the dancers. Moreover, Officer Kim testified that he recovered eighty completed client contracts similar to the contract executed on September 16, 1995. According to the officer, the client contracts indicated that, between March and September 1995, Richie had conducted eighty performances and received a total of $17,810 from those performances. The above documents were either formally entered into evidence or entered by stipulation. In addition, a number of photographs of dancers in various positions and states of undress were entered into evidence. These photographs were obtained from Richie's home and briefcase. The prosecution also entered into evidence a videotape taken shortly after KPD officers entered the condominium. On February 9, 1996, the jury found Richie guilty of promoting prostitution in the second degree and unlawful ownership or operation of business. Richie was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years imprisonment and ten years imprisonment, respectively. Following entry of judgment on May 22, 1996, Richie filed a timely notice of appeal. Before addressing Richie's arguments, it is necessary to examine the applicable statutes. HRS § 712-1203 (1993) provides in relevant part: It is clear that the definition of promoting prostitution in the second degree incorporates the concept of "prostitution." "Prostitution" is a separate offense defined in HRS *1238 § 712-1200 (1993), which provides in relevant part: Prostitution, therefore, requires "sexual conduct," and "sexual conduct" expressly includes "sexual contact," as defined in HRS § 707-700. HRS § 707-700 (1993) provides in relevant part: Thus, by the plain meaning of HRS §§ 712-1200 and 707-700, touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person, for a fee, constitutes prostitution, even if the touching occurs through clothing. "It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that, where the terms of a statute are plain, unambiguous and explicit, we are not at liberty to look beyond that language for a different meaning. Instead, our sole duty is to give effect to the statute's plain and obvious meaning." Alvarez v. Liberty House, Inc., 85 Hawai`i 275, 278, 942 P.2d 539, 542 (1997) (quoting Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai`i) Ltd., Inc., 76 Hawai`i 454, 461, 879 P.2d 1037, 1044-45 (1994)). Clearly, prostitution under HRS § 712-1200 encompasses touching through clothing. Consequently, promoting prostitution in the second degree under HRS § 712-1203 includes advancing or profiting from prostitution by controlling a prostitution business or enterprise where the alleged prostitution involves touching through clothing for a fee. Amicus Curiae State of Hawai`i, as represented by the Department of the Attorney General, notes that the broad definition of "sexual contact" in HRS § 707-700 was specifically enacted in response to a decision of this court. In State v. Rodgers, 68 Haw. 438, 718 P.2d 275 (1986), we held that the touching of breasts through clothing did not constitute "sexual contact" under the original version of HRS § 707-700. Id. at 444, 718 P.2d at 278. In response, the legislature amended HRS § 707-700 to include touching through clothing. See 1987 Haw. Sess. L. Act 181, § 7, at 410; Hse. Stand Comm. Rep. No. 691, in 1987 House Journal, at 1434. Thus, even if there were any ambiguity in the definition of "sexual contact," the history of the statute indicates that the legislature specifically intended to prohibit touching through clothing. Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes that the definition of "sexual contact" in HRS § 707-700 is located in a different chapter of the Hawai`i Penal Code than prostitution. The ACLU, therefore, argues that the definition should be limited to the sexual offenses found in HRS ch. 707, Part V. The ACLU argues that the definition of "sexual contact" might make sense when applied to sexual assault under HRS §§ 707-730, 707-731, 707-732, and 707-733; however, it does not make sense when applied to prostitution under HRS § 712-1200. We concede that sexual assault and prostitution are distinguishable offenses. Therefore, it might have been wise for the legislature to adopt either a different definition of "sexual contact" specifically applicable to prostitution or even to eliminate "sexual contact" as a basis for prostitution. Certainly, it *1239 would have been reasonable for the legislature to limit prostitution to "sexual penetration." However, the legislature did not do so. Instead, in HRS § 712-1200, the legislature expressly incorporated the broad definition of "sexual contact" found in HRS § 707-700. We cannot ignore the plain and unambiguous language of the statutes at issue in this case. Richie argues that his conviction of promoting prostitution in the second degree should be reversed because the definition of "sexual contact" is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The following standard of review applies to constitutional challenges based on vagueness or overbreadth: State v. Bates, 84 Hawai`i 211, 220, 933 P.2d 48, 57 (1997) (quoting State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 137-38, 890 P.2d 1167, 1177-78 (1995)) (brackets, ellipses, and internal block quotes omitted). When addressing a vagueness challenge, we apply the following principles: Id. at 220-21, 933 P.2d at 57-58 (quoting Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i at 138, 890 P.2d at 1178) (internal block quotes omitted). In the present case, the definition of "sexual contact" in HRS § 707-700 is crystal clear. The statute establishes a bright-line rule, which in laypersons' terms can be summarized as: "You can look but you can't touch." This definition gives the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. It also constitutes an explicit standard that avoids arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and is *1240 not subjective. Thus, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. "The doctrine of overbreadth, although closely related to a vagueness claim, is distinct in that while a statute may be clear and precise in its terms, it may sweep so broadly that constitutionally protected conduct as well as unprotected conduct is included in its proscriptions." Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i at 142, 890 P.2d at 1182 (quoting State v. Kaneakua, 61 Haw. 136, 143, 597 P.2d 590, 594 (1979)). Richie argues that the constitutionally protected conduct infringed upon by the definition of "sexual contact" is nude dancing. It is true that, under certain circumstances, nude dancing is protected by the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has noted: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 565-66 [111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504] (1991). However, nothing in the definition of "sexual contact" in HRS § 707-700 prohibits nude dancing per se. Individuals are not prevented from dancing in the nude. The conduct prohibited is the touching of sexual or intimate parts. Thus, the statute still permits dancing in the nude and allows customers to look at performers dancing in the nude; what the customers cannot do is touch the performers. The dancing at issue in Barnes and Schad apparently did not involve touching. Both cases involved coin-operated booths with the dancer performing behind a glass panel. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 563, 111 S. Ct. 2456; Schad, 452 U.S. at 62, 101 S. Ct. 2176. Although Barnes also involved "go-go dancing," there is no indication that this dancing involved physical contact with customers. Barnes, 501 U.S. at 563, 111 S. Ct. 2456. Similarly, the "topless dancing" in Doran does not appear to have involved physical contact. Doran, 422 U.S. at 924, 95 S. Ct. 2561. Thus, we believe that HRS § 707-700 does not unconstitutionally interfere with the protected activity of nude dancing. Richie raises additional examples of the statute's alleged overbreadth that we believe are extreme and patently absurd. Richie argues that dance instructors, fashion designers, and tailors would be affected by the definition of "sexual contact." His most outrageous example is "sitting on the lap of Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny." If one compares the conduct at issue in this case, see supra part I, with the examples just mentioned, it is clear that they are distinguishable. The conduct in this case had clear sexual overtones. Moreover, under HRS § 712-1200, the sexual contact must be for a fee; conversely, the fee must be specifically for the sexual contact. The examples cited by Richie are clearly absurd. In reviewing a penal statute, we accord it "a limited and reasonable interpretation ... in order to preserve its overall purpose and to avoid absurd results." Bates, 84 Hawai`i at 220, 933 P.2d at 57. Richie's attempt to apply HRS § 707-700 to extreme and absurd situations is not sufficient to render it unconstitutionally overbroad. Richie next argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of prostitution. Insofar as promoting prostitution in the second degree incorporates the concept of prostitution, Richie is apparently *1241 arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have repeatedly stated: State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997) (quoting State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai`i 131, 135, 913 P.2d 57, 61 (1996)) (emphasis omitted). "`Substantial evidence' as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Eastman, 81 Hawai`i at 135, 913 P.2d at 61. In the present case, there was sufficient evidence of prostitution to support the jury's verdict. The testimony of Officer Villanueva and Officer Okagawa clearly support the conclusion that sexual contact occurred. There was abundant and repeated contact with breasts, contact with genitalia, and simulation of sexual intercourse. Some of the contact occurred directly and some of it occurred through clothing. Moreover, there was evidence supporting the conclusion that the officers obtained an agreement to engage in sexual conduct with Monica Alves. There was also evidence indicating that the sexual contact occurring that night was for a fee. Officer Villanueva paid Richie $750 for the entire performance. Inasmuch as the performance included sexual contact, that $750 payment constituted a fee for sexual contact. In addition, the jury could have reasonably concluded, based on the circumstances, that the tips received by the dancers also constituted a fee for sexual contact. Finally, the jury could have concluded that the $225 discussed in relation to having sex with Alves constituted a fee. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence of prostitution. In addition, Richie's activities in organizing and encouraging the performance that night, as well as his receipt of the $750 fee and a portion of the tips, support the conclusion that he advanced or profited from prostitution. His business, Fanta-See Express, could be interpreted as a prostitution enterprise that he controlled. Finally, three dancers were involved in the performance; therefore, there was evidence of two or more prostitutes. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support Richie's conviction of promoting prostitution. Richie argues that his conviction of unlawful ownership or operation of business under HRS § 842-2(2) should be reversed. Richie raises a number of arguments; however, we need only address one of them.[5] Richie argues that HRS § 701-109(1)(d) bars his conviction, and we agree.[6] HRS § 701-109 (1993) provides in relevant part: This provision was based on section 1.07(1)(d) of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (MPC). The commentary to this section explains: Comment to MPC § 1.07 (1985) (footnote omitted). Hawai`i case law applying HRS § 701-109(1)(d) has tended to focus on the question whether the statutes at issue "seek to redress the same conduct." State v. Hoopii, 68 Haw. 246, 251, 710 P.2d 1193, 1196 (1985). Where the "main thrust" of one statute differs from another, HRS § 707-709(1)(d) does not prohibit convictions under both statutes. Id. at 251, 710 P.2d at 1196-97. This court has held that the following prosecutions are not barred by HRS § 701-109(1)(d): robbery and burglary, see State v. Vinge, 81 Hawai`i 309, 320 n. 12, 916 P.2d 1210, 1221 n. 12 (1996); theft and fraudulent use of a credit card, see State v. Freeman, 70 Haw. 434, 440-41, 774 P.2d 888, 892 (1989); and kidnapping and rape/sodomy, see Hoopii, 68 Haw. at 251, 710 P.2d at 1196-97. The statutes at issue in the present case are HRS § 712-1203[7] and HRS § 842-2. HRS § 842-2 (1993) provides in relevant part: It is clear that Richie was convicted based on "maintain[ing], directly or indirectly, ... control of [an] enterprise" through racketeering activity. See id. Nothing in this case involved the acquisition of an ownership interest in or control of Fanta-See Express. Thus, Richie's conviction was based on maintaining control of an enterprise through racketeering activity.[10] However, Richie's *1243 conviction of promoting prostitution in the second degree was based on essentially the same conduct. Richie "[a]dvance[d] or profit[ed] from prostitution by managing, supervising, controlling, or owning ... a prostitution business or enterprise [.]" See HRS § 712-1203 (emphases added). On the one hand, Richie was convicted of RICO based on maintaining control of an enterprise through racketeering activity; on the other hand, he was convicted of promoting prostitution based on controlling a prostitution enterprise. It is clear that the two statutes, under the circumstances of the present case, seek to redress the same conductthe control of an enterprise involved in criminal activity. The "main thrust" of both statutes is basically the same. The only difference between the two statutes is that HRS § 842-2(2) is directed against enterprises in general, while HRS § 712-1203 is directed against prostitution enterprises specifically. We must, therefore, assume that the legislature did not intend that there be more than one conviction under these circumstances. Consequently, HRS § 701-109(1)(d) prohibits conviction under both statutes. The next question is which conviction should be reversed. The prosecution suggests that we reverse Richie's conviction for promoting prostitution in the second degree, i.e., the conviction with the lesser penalty. The ICA apparently did so in State v. Liuafi, 1 Haw.App. 625, 623 P.2d 1271 (1981), a case involving inconsistent findings of fact in violation of HRS § 701-109(1)(c). The ICA affirmed the defendant's conviction of attempted murder and vacated his conviction of failure to render assistance. Id. at 644, 623 P.2d at 1283. However, we believe that a different rule should be applied to HRS § 701-109(1)(d). We have often held that State v. Vallesteros, 84 Hawai`i 295, 303, 933 P.2d 632, 640, reconsideration denied, 84 Hawai`i 496, 936 P.2d 191 (1997). HRS § 842-2(2) and HRS § 712-1203 constitute general and specific statutes, respectively. Insofar as HRS § 701-109(1)(d) bars conviction of both offenses, the two statutes conflict. It is not possible to give effect to both; therefore, the specific statute governs. Consequently, we must affirm Richie's conviction under HRS § 712-1203 and reverse his conviction under HRS § 842-2(2). During jury selection, it was revealed that two jurors, Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson, were married to each other. Defense counsel asked the trial court its policy on husbands and wives serving on the same jury. The trial court refused to allow a challenge for cause because, as long as spouses can follow the jury instructions, "it's just like any body else." "A fair trial by an impartial jury is guaranteed to the criminally accused by both the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 14 of the Hawaii Constitution." State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai`i 507, 523, 928 P.2d 1, 17 (1996) (quoting State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai`i 383, 393, 894 P.2d 80, 90 (1995)). "We review the trial court's decision to pass a juror for cause under the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (citing State v. Baron, 80 Hawai`i 107, *1244 114, 905 P.2d 613, 620, reconsideration granted in part, 80 Hawai`i 187, 907 P.2d 773 (1995)). Richie argues on appeal that We disagree with Richie's assertion that jurors who are married to each other must be disqualified from jury service. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson expressly stated during voir dire that they would each make their own decisions and would not automatically go along with the other person. Thus, there was no evidence that either Mr. or Mrs. Ferguson was incapable of fulfilling his or her responsibilities as a juror. Richie cannot demonstrate actual impairment of the Fergusons' ability to serve as jurors. This court, however, held in Kauhi, supra, that implied bias can provide a basis for challenging jurors for cause. In Kauhi, we quoted a concurring opinion by Justice O'Connor for the proposition that "there are some extreme situations that would justify a finding of implied bias." Id. at 200, 948 P.2d at 1041 (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 222, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring)) (emphasis altered). We held that "where a prospective juror is a prosecutor currently employed by the same office as the prosecutor trying the defendant, the court shall imply bias as a matter of law and dismiss the prospective juror for cause." Id. We believe that the present case is distinguishable from Kauhi. The present case did not involve an "extreme situation" equivalent to a prospective juror working as a prosecutor in the same office as the prosecutor trying the case. Neither did this case involve a juror related to the defendant, the attorneys, or the witnesses. The term "extreme situations" in Kauhi and Smith refers to situations in which there is an uncomfortably close relationship between a juror and either a party, counsel, or a witness on one side of the case. Here, there was no such relationship between Mr. or Mrs. Ferguson, on the one hand, and a person associated with the prosecution or the defense, on the other. Rather, the challenged relationship was between two jurors. In contrast to the Kauhi /Smith situation, the present situation does not create a danger that a juror will be biased or will be perceived to be biased in favor of one side or the other. Thus, there is no "appearance of impropriety" and no need to imply bias as a matter of law. The only possible danger when two jurors are spouses is that one juror might automatically vote along with the other. In this day and age, in which marriage is regarded as an equal partnership, see Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 492, 836 P.2d 484, 495 (1992) (recognizing the partnership model of marriage), the danger of one spouse dictating a decision in a jury trial to the other spouse should be regarded as minimal. Nevertheless, any conceivable danger can easily be dispelled by asking both jurors, on voir dire, whether they would make their own decisions independently. Inasmuch as Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson both assured the court that they would each make their own decisions, Richie's right to an impartial jury was not violated. On this particular record before us, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse Mr. or Mrs. Ferguson for cause. We apply two different standards of review in addressing evidentiary issues. "Where the evidentiary ruling at issue concerns admissibility based on relevance, under [Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE)] Rules 401 and 402,[[11]] the proper standard of appellate *1245 review is the right/wrong standard." State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (quoting State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai`i 307, 314, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129 (1996)) (original brackets and ellipses omitted). "Evidentiary decisions based on HRE Rule 403,[[12]] which require a `judgment call' on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Id. (quoting Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai`i 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995)). "HRE 404[[13]] represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 (see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review." Id. (quoting State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538, 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994)). Richie argues that the trial court erred in admitting a statement made by Richie to KPD Lieutenant K.C. Lum. Lieutenant Lum testified that, three days after the arrests, Richie came to the police station and asserted that the conduct in this case did not constitute prostitution. According to Lieutenant Lum, Richie stated that he knew all links in the prostitution business, that his wife had been a prostitute in Nevada, that he had been involved with prostitution from a young age, that he knew what prostitution was, and that what occurred in the present case was not prostitution. On appeal, Richie argues that this testimony constituted improper character evidence relating to a prior bad act, in violation of HRE Rule 404(b), and was prejudicial, in violation of HRE Rule 403. We disagree. Under HRE Rule 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is ordinarily not admissible to prove character; however, such acts are admissible when they are relevant/probative of another fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. See State v. Clark, 83 Hawai`i 289, 300, 926 P.2d 194, 205, reconsideration denied, 83 Hawai`i 545, 928 P.2d 39 (1996); State v. Renon, 73 Haw. 23, 32, 828 P.2d 1266, 1270, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 858 P.2d 734 (1992). The acts at issue in the present case consisted of Richie's prior involvement in and experience with prostitution and the prostitution business. These acts were probative of another fact of consequence because they related to Richie's knowledge of prostitution and the prostitution business. Although the list of permissible purposes in HRE Rule 404(b) is not exhaustive, see Clark, 83 Hawai`i at 300, 926 P.2d at 205, "knowledge" is indeed expressly listed. Richie's knowledge of prostitution was relevant because the state of mind required for promoting prostitution in the second degree is "knowingly." See HRS § 712-1203. Moreover, Richie's knowledge of the prostitution business was relevant because "controlling ... a prostitution business or enterprise" is an element of promoting prostitution in the second degree. See id. "[O]nce the evidence of prior bad acts is determined to be relevant, the court must then balance the probative value of the relevant evidence against its prejudicial impact." Clark, 83 Hawai`i at 302, 926 P.2d at 207 (citing Renon, 73 Haw. at 32, 828 P.2d at *1246 1270). As noted above, the statement in question was probative of Richie's knowledge of prostitution and the prostitution business. Furthermore, its prejudicial effect was mitigated by the fact that the overall thrust of the statement was exculpatory. Richie essentially told Lieutenant Lum that he knew prostitution, that he had experience with prostitution, and that what occurred in this case was not prostitution. Admission of this statement allowed into evidence Richie's opinion that the conduct in this case was not prostitution without subjecting him to cross-examination. In other words, the effect of the statement was to allow Richie to testify without waiving his right against self-incrimination. Consequently, the prejudicial effect of the statement was minimized by its overall exculpatory import. Thus, the probative value of the statement outweighed its prejudicial effect, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The statement was admissible under HRE Rules 404(b) and 403. Richie next argues that the trial court erred in admitting a videotape of the arrest taken by the police. Richie argues that the videotape "contains graphic video of the co-defendant women" and was highly prejudicial and of no probative value, in violation of HRE Rule 403.[14] We disagree. Review of the challenged videotape indicates that its principal purpose was to show the layout of the crime scene and the persons involved. The camera moves through the condominium and records the appearance of the overall scene. Therefore, the videotape had probative value. As for prejudice caused by the "graphic" nature of the videotape, only a brief sequence involves any nudity at all. Two of the women appear in the videotape without their clothes, but for the most part, they are obscured by two large cushions held in front of them. In short, the videotape can hardly be termed "graphic." Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape into evidence. Richie next argues that the photographs of dancers in various positions and states of undress obtained from Richie's home and briefcase were inadmissible because they were irrelevant, in violation of HRE Rules 401 and 402.[15] Again, we disagree. The photographs at issue were not of the specific events that occurred on September 16, 1995. Some of the photographs show a male dancer, with whipped cream and oil on his chest, dancing in front of female customers. However, all three of the dancers on September 16, 1995 were women. Moreover, one of the photographs shows Alves lying in bed with a fully-clothed elderly gentleman. The testimony describing the events of September 16, 1995 makes no mention of Alves being photographed in bed with an elderly man. Therefore, the photographs were apparently of different performances occurring prior to September 16, 1995. Evidence of these additional performances was relevant to the offense of promoting prostitution in the second degree. A conviction under HRS § 712-1203 requires proof that the defendant "manag[ed], supervis[ed], controll[ed], or own[ed] ... a prostitution business or enterprise[.]" The photographs at issue here, along with the advertisement records, the general excise tax license, the employee records, and the eighty client contracts, were relevant in proving that Richie controlled a prostitution business or enterprise. The evidence demonstrated that the events of September 16, 1995 did not simply constitute an isolated episode of "advanc[ing] or profit[ing] from prostitution" but, in fact, constituted part of the operation of a prostitution business or enterprise. Consequently, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs. In an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the question is: "When viewed as a whole, was the assistance provided to the defendant within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases?" State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i 462, 479, 946 P.2d 32, 49 (1997) (quoting State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai`i 293, 300, 916 P.2d 703, 710 (1996)). This court has also held that Id. at 480, 946 P.2d at 50 (quoting Edwards, 81 Hawai`i at 300, 916 P.2d at 710). "Determining whether a defense is `potentially meritorious' requires an evaluation of the possible, rather than the probable, effect of the defense on the decision maker.... Accordingly, no showing of `actual' prejudice is required to prove ineffective assistance of counsel." Id. (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Hawai`i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994)). Richie argues that trial counsel's performance was constitutionally ineffective on various grounds. Richie argues that trial counsel erred in failing to file a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment based on insufficiency of the evidence. However, trial counsel did move for judgment of acquittal at trial. See Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 29. Therefore, insufficiency of the evidence was raised, and Richie has not lost a potentially meritorious defense because of the failure to file a pre-trial motion. Richie next argues that trial counsel failed to investigate and obtain the testimony of the four construction workers who were also present at the party. However, the record lacks reliable evidence indicating what the construction workers would have testified to. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure to obtain witnesses must be supported by affidavits or sworn statements describing the testimony of the proffered witnesses. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i at 481, 946 P.2d at 51; State v. Reed, 77 Hawai`i 72, 84, 881 P.2d 1218, 1230 (1994); State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. 54, 68-69, 837 P.2d 1298, 1306 (1992). Inasmuch as Richie has not supported his ineffective assistance claim with affidavits or sworn statements, his claim fails. Richie also argues that trial counsel erred in failing to call any of the four women involved in this case as witnesses. The calling of witnesses is a strategic decision that is generally left to defense counsel. The ABA Defense Function Standards provide useful guidance in determining which decisions must be made by the defendant and which decisions are the province of counsel: American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal JusticeProsecution Function and Defense Function, Standard 4-5.2 (3d ed.1993) [hereinafter ABA Defense Function Standards]. Thus, the calling of witnesses is generally a strategic decision for defense counsel. In the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this court has held that "matters presumably within the judgment of counsel, like trial strategy, `will rarely be second-guessed by judicial hindsight.'" *1248 State v. Smith, 68 Haw. 304, 311, 712 P.2d 496, 501 (1986) (quoting State v. El'Ayache, 62 Haw. 646, 649, 618 P.2d 1142, 1144 (1980)) (emphasis added). "[T]he decision whether to call witnesses in a criminal case is normally a matter within the judgment of counsel and, accordingly, will rarely be second-guessed by judicial hindsight." Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 70, 837 P.2d at 1307.[16] In the present case, the decision of trial counsel not to call the four women appears to have been a strategic decision, and it will not be second-guessed on appeal. Even if we could review trial counsel's strategic decision, it was apparently a valid one. In return for the prosecution dismissing the charges against them, the four women agreed to testify truthfully in Richie's trial. If trial counsel had called them as defense witnesses, they might have provided testimony that hurt Richie. Thus, it was a legitimate strategic decision not to call them. Furthermore, the record indicates that the trial court ordered a recess so that counsel could discuss the calling of witnesses with Richie. Thus, it appears that Richie himself approved the strategy not to call the four women as witnesses. Richie also notes that trial counsel failed to object to the admission into evidence of the videotape of the arrest and the photographs of dancers in various positions and states of undress. According to Richie, this constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. However, regardless of whether counsel objected or not, the evidence was admissible. See supra part II.D. Failing to object to admissible evidence cannot be considered an error or omission. Moreover, because the evidence was admissible, the failure to object did not deprive Richie of a potentially meritorious defense. Richie next argues that trial counsel erred in failing to successfully challenge the selection of Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson, the married couple, as jurors. However, there was no valid basis for challenging them for cause. See supra part II.C. Richie argues that trial counsel should have used a peremptory challenge to excuse them. However, according to the ABA Defense Function Standards, what jurors to accept or strike is a strategic decision primarily left to defense counsel. ABA Defense Function Standards, Standard 4-5.2(b). Therefore, we will not secondguess trial counsel's strategic decision on appeal.[17] Richie also argues that trial counsel erred in failing to challenge the lack of African-Americans on the jury under State v. Batson, 71 Haw. 300, 788 P.2d 841 (1990). Under Batson, the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is prohibited: Id. at 302-03, 788 P.2d at 842. See also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). Nothing in the record indicates that the prosecution exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. In fact, nothing in the record indicates that any of the challenged jurors were African-American. Thus, there is no evidence supporting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on Batson. Although Richie expressly relies on Batson, we believe that he is actually raising, somewhat inartfully, a different issue. His real argument appears to be that the jury did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. *1249 The selection of a jury from a representative cross-section of the community is an essential component of the right to an impartial jury guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, see Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 528, 95 S. Ct. 692, 42 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1975), and article I, section 14 of the Hawai`i Constitution, see State v. Garrison, 10 Haw.App. 1, 12, 860 P.2d 610, 616, cert. denied, 75 Haw. 581, 863 P.2d 989 (1993). Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1979). See also Garrison, 10 Haw.App. at 13, 860 P.2d at 616. Although it is clear that African-Americans qualify as a distinctive group in the community, Richie points to no evidence supporting the other two elements. There is no indication that African-Americans were underrepresented on the venire in relation to their number in the community. Even assuming arguendo that African-Americans were underrepresented, there is no indication that it was due to systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. Thus, there is insufficient evidence of a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement. Consequently, trial counsel's failure to raise the issue at trial did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Richie argues that the performance of trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective based on a conflict of interest. Richie asserts that one of his trial attorneys was representing Monica Alves in a civil suit at the same time the attorney was representing Richie in the present case. Richie argues that because his attorney also represented a former co-defendant and potential prosecution witness, a conflict of interest existed that provides a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The issue of conflict of interest as a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was addressed in two cases decided by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA): State v. Reis, 4 Haw.App. 327, 666 P.2d 612 (1983); and State v. Pitt, 77 Hawai`i 374, 884 P.2d 1150 (App.1994). In Reis, the ICA set forth the following analysis: Reis, 4 Haw.App. at 330-32, 666 P.2d at 616 (citations omitted). The Reis analysis was subsequently followed in Pitt. See Pitt, 77 Hawai`i at 378-79, 884 P.2d at 1154-55. However, upon careful consideration, we believe that the standard adopted in Reis is now obsolete. When Reis was decided in 1983, Hawai`i law was unclear as to whether a showing of actual prejudice[18] was required in ordinary ineffective assistance of counsel cases (i.e., not involving conflicts of interest). Compare State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 615 P.2d 101 (1980), with State v. Torres, 54 Haw. 502, 510 P.2d 494 (1973), and Stough v. State, 62 Haw. 620, 618 P.2d 301 (1980). In fact, Reis apparently assumed that actual prejudice was required in ordinary ineffective assistance cases. See Reis, 4 Haw.App. at 330-31 n. 3, 666 P.2d at 616 n. 3 (citing Stough, supra). Since then, this court has expressly held that actual prejudice is not required; it is only necessary to show the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. Briones, 74 Haw. at 464, 848 P.2d at 977. We rejected the requirement of actual prejudice largely because we believed that it was "unduly difficult for a defendant to meet." Smith, 68 Haw. at 310 n. 7, 712 P.2d at 500 n. 7. The standard set forth in Reis, however, requires "actual prejudice" or "a specific instance of prejudice" in conflict of interest cases. Reis, 4 Haw.App. at 330, 666 P.2d at 616. Insofar as we have expressly rejected actual prejudice in ordinary ineffective assistance cases, it makes no sense to require actual prejudice in conflict of interest cases. Consequently. Reis appears to be inconsistent with current Hawai`i law. Furthermore, Reis is inconsistent with the federal conflict of interest standard. In the past, we have not hesitated to extend the protections of the Hawai`i Constitution beyond federal standards. See, e.g., State v. Bowe, 77 Hawai`i 51, 57, 881 P.2d 538, 544 (1994); State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 453-57, 865 P.2d 150, 154-55 (1994). In the ineffective assistance of counsel context, the two-part test applicable to ordinary ineffective assistance cases "clearly affords greater protection" than the federal standard. Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 67 n. 2, 837 P.2d at 1305 n. 2. However, when departing from the federal standard, this court must at least provide the minimum level of protection required by the federal interpretation of the United States Constitution. State v. Quino, 74 Haw. 161, 170, 840 P.2d 358, 362, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1031, 113 S. Ct. 1849, 123 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993); State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 142 n. 2, 433 P.2d 593, 597 n. 2 (1967). The standard set forth in Reis appears to provide less protection than the federal standard in conflict of interest cases. Under the federal standard, proof of actual prejudice is not required because "prejudice *1251 is presumed when counsel is burdened by an actual conflict of interest." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S. Ct. 1708, 64 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1980)). To the extent that Reis requires actual prejudice, it is inconsistent with and provides less protection than the federal standard. Finally, Reis was decided before the Hawai`i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) were adopted on December 6, 1993 (becoming effective on January 1, 1994). The HRPC contain standards specifically addressing conflict of interest situations. See, e.g., HRPC Rule 1.7. Insofar as the HRPC deal specifically with conflicts of interest, they are at least relevant in determining the circumstances in which a conflict of interest constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the analysis in Reis is fatally out of date, and we expressly overrule it. We believe that a new test is warranted for ineffective assistance of counsel based on conflict of interest. HRPC Rule 1.7 provides: The commentary discussing this rule provides further guidance in determining its meaning: Commentary to HRPC Rule 1.7, Comments [7] &amp; [8]. Based on the commentary, it is *1252 clear that paragraph (b) applies, inter alia, to joint representation of co-parties. In the criminal context, this would be the situation in which the same attorney represents two or more co-defendants. Furthermore, paragraph (a) applies to concurrent representation of opposing parties in litigation. In the criminal context, because the party represented by the prosecuting attorney is the State of Hawai`i, this would be the situation in which defense counsel not only represents the defendant in the current case but also represents the State of Hawai`i in another case. Additionally, we believe that paragraph (a) encompasses the situation in which defense counsel represents, in another case, a person who is a prosecution witness in the current case. Paragraph (a) applies when an attorney's representation is "directly adverse" to another client. When the attorney cross-examines that client on the witness stand, he is clearly acting "directly adverse" to that client. Under the federal conflict of interest standard, the defendant must demonstrate that his attorney "actively represented conflicting interests" and that "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052; Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348, 350, 100 S. Ct. 1708. As noted above, proof of actual prejudice is not required. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052. Furthermore, a defendant may knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to conflict-free representation. Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1024, 115 S. Ct. 1374, 131 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1995). In light of HRPC Rule 1.7 and the federal standard, it is clear that three factors are relevant in determining whether a conflict of interest constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The first factor is whether a relationship existed between the attorney and his/her clients giving rise to a conflict. The second factor is whether the relationship had an adverse effect on counsel's performance. And the third factor is whether counsel obtained the consent of his/her clients. Therefore, we hold that defense counsel's representation is constitutionally ineffective under the Hawai`i Constitution if: (1) a relationship giving rise to a conflict of interest existed between defense counsel and his/her clients; and (2) either the relationship adversely affected defense counsel's performance, or the client did not consent to the relationship. Examples of a relationship giving rise to a conflict include joint representation of two or more co-defendants and concurrent representation of both the defendant and either the State of Hawai`i or a prosecution witness.[19] Any demonstrable adverse effect on counsel's performance is sufficient; actual prejudice is not required. Finally, consent by the client should be given after full consultation. In the present case, it is clear that trial counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective based on conflict of interest. First, it is apparently undisputed that trial counsel represented both Richie in the present case and Alves in a separate civil case. Inasmuch as Alves was an obvious potential witness in the present case, trial counsel's decision to represent Alves in the civil case was, at the very least, unwise. However, based on the particular circumstances of the present case, we do not believe that trial counsel's relationship with Richie and Alves supports an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. By the time Richie went to trial, the charges against Alves had been dismissed; therefore, she was no longer a codefendant in the present case. Furthermore, Alves was never actually called as a witness in this case. Although she was clearly a potential witness, she was not an actual witness. Therefore, Alves was neither a codefendant nor a prosecution witness in Richie's trial. Moreover, Richie was represented by two attorneys at trial, and it appears that only one of these attorneys was involved in Alves's civil suit. Consequently, under the particular circumstances of this case, we do not believe that trial counsel's relationship with his clients was sufficient to give rise to a conflict of interest. *1253 Second, Richie argues that trial counsel's relationship with both Richie and Alves adversely affected counsel's performance in that it influenced his decision not to call Alves as a witness. We disagree. As noted above, trial counsel's decision was the result of trial strategy. It is significant that trial counsel did not call any of the four women as witnesses. Had counsel failed to call only Alves, then there might have been support for Richie's argument. However, the fact that counsel did not call any of the four women indicates that it was part of the overall trial strategy. Finally, there is a distinct possibility that Richie consented to the relationship. In a memorandum submitted to the trial court, trial counsel asserted that he "obtained the appropriate waivers." This assertion is contained in a memorandum rather than in an affidavit or sworn testimony; therefore, it does not constitute reliable evidence of consent and we cannot base our decision upon it. Nevertheless, it does indicate that the issue was in dispute. It is the defendant's burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i at 480, 946 P.2d at 50. Consequently, it was Richie's burden to prove that trial counsel did not obtain the necessary consent. Other than uncorroborated assertions, Richie points to no evidence in the record supporting his claim.[20] In the past, we have required affidavits or sworn testimony to support ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id. at 481, 946 P.2d at 51; Reed, 77 Hawai`i at 84, 881 P.2d at 1230; Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 68-69, 837 P.2d at 1306. Therefore, Richie has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that trial counsel did not obtain the necessary consent from his client. For the reasons discussed above, Richie's ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are meritless.[21] Accordingly, we affirm Richie's conviction of promoting prostitution in the second degree, but we reverse his conviction of unlawful ownership or operation of business. [1] HRS ch. 842 is Hawaii's version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 18 U.S.C. ch. 96. References to "RICO" in this opinion may apply to either the federal statute or the Hawai`i statute depending upon the circumstances. [2] Charges against the four women were later dismissed in return for their agreement to testify truthfully in Richie's trial. However, none of the four women was actually called as a witness at trial in this case. [3] HRS § 712-1201 (1993) provides: Promoting prostitution; definition of terms. In sections 712-1202, 712-1203, and 712-1204: (1) A person "advances prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute or a patron of a prostitute, he knowingly causes or aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution, procures or solicits patrons for prostitution, provides persons for prostitution purposes, permits premises to be regularly used for prostitution purposes, operates or assists in the operation of a house of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise, or engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid, or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution. (2) A person "profits from prostitution" if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally-rendered prostitution services, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of prostitution activity. [4] HRS § 707-700 also provides in relevant part: "Deviate sexual intercourse" means any act of sexual gratification between a person and an animal or a corpse, involving the sex organs of one and the mouth, anus, or sex organs of the other. .... "Sexual penetration" means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, anilingus, deviate sexual intercourse, or any intrusion of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body; it occurs upon any penetration, however slight, but emission is not required. [5] Richie also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, that the trial court delivered an erroneous instruction on the definition of a RICO "enterprise," that the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Hawai`i Constitutions barred his conviction, and that HRS § 701-109(1)(e) barred his conviction. Inasmuch as we are reversing his conviction on other grounds, it is unnecessary for us to address these issues. [6] This issue was not raised below and was not included in the point of error section of Richie's opening brief (although it was raised in the argument section of the brief). Ordinarily, this would justify our refusal to address the issue on appeal. However, this court has reviewed possible violations of HRS § 701-109 under the plain error doctrine in the past. See Alston, 75 Haw. at 529-30, 865 P.2d at 164-65. Consequently, despite the failure of trial counsel and appellate counsel to properly raise this issue, we address it sua sponte. [7] See supra part II.A.1 for the text of HRS § 712-1203. [8] HRS § 842-1 (1993) provides in relevant part: "Racketeering activity" means any act or threat involving but not limited to murder, kidnapping, gambling, criminal property damage, robbery, bribery, extortion, theft or prostitution, or any dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs which is chargeable as a crime under state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. "Unlawful debt" means a debt incurred or contracted in an illegal gambling activity or business or which is unenforceable under state law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the law relating to usury. [9] See State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai`i 56, 929 P.2d 69 (1996) (adopting a definition of "enterprise" under HRS § 842-2). [10] It should be noted that HRS § 842-2(2) is primarily directed toward a slightly different situation. As one RICO treatise stated: "Thus § 1962(b) [the federal equivalent of HRS § 842-2(2)] was aimed primarily at situations in which criminal methods were employed to take control of legitimate businesses. To ... cite Mario Puzo, The Godfather depicts a violation of § 1962(b) when Michael Corleone obtained an interest in a Las Vegas gambling casino by means of murder and extortion, both predicate offenses under the RICO Act. D. McCormack, 1 Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations § 5.22, at 5-25 (1997). Therefore, the enterprise in an HRS § 842-2(2) case is ordinarily an innocent victim of the defendant. However, federal case law suggests that the enterprise does not have to be an innocent victim, but can be the direct or indirect beneficiary of the defendant's conduct. Thus, maintaining control of an enterprise through racketeering activity, in violation of HRS § 842-2(2), can be shown if: (1) racketeering activity occurred, (2) the enterprise received income from the racketeering activity, and (3) that income was used in the operations of the enterprise. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1396-98 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat'l Bank &amp; Trust Co., 747 F.2d 384 (7th Cir.1984), aff'd on other grounds, 473 U.S. 606, 105 S. Ct. 3291, 87 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1985)). [11] HRE Rule 401 provides: Definition of "relevant evidence". "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. HRE Rule 402 provides: Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawaii, by statute, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the supreme court. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. [12] HRE Rule 403 provides: Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. [13] HRE Rule 404(b) provides in relevant part: Other crimes, wrongs, acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible where such evidence is probative of another fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, or absence of mistake or accident. [14] Trial counsel did not object to the admission of this evidence in the trial court. Thus, we would ordinarily refuse to address this issue on appeal. See HRE Rule 103(a)(1). However, we may notice errors not raised below under the plain error doctrine. See HRE Rule 103(d). Moreover, Richie relies on this issue as a basis for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See infra part II.E. Therefore, we address the merits of the issue here. [15] Trial counsel also failed to object to the admission of this evidence in the trial court. Nevertheless, we address the merits of the issue for the same reasons discussed supra in note 14. [16] However, when the failure to call a witness is the result of a failure to conduct a minimal investigation, it cannot be deemed a strategic decision. See Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 71, 837 P.2d at 1307 (citing State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182, 188 (Utah 1990)). In Aplaca, the record contained trial counsel's admission that he did not investigate the prospective witnesses. Id. at 69, 837 P.2d at 1306. In contrast, nothing in the present case indicates that trial counsel failed to investigate the four women. [17] While the ABA Defense Function Standards do state that strategic decisions should be made by counsel "after consultation with the client," such consultation is qualified by the requirement that it be "feasible and appropriate." ABA Defense Function Standards, Standard 4-5.2(b). [18] "Actual prejudice" is defined as a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442, 464 n. 12, 848 P.2d 966, 977 n. 12 (1993) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)). [19] Reis also addressed conflicts of interest in prior representation situations. However, inasmuch as prior representation is not at issue in the present case, we do not address it here. [20] Richie relies on a memorandum submitted in the trial court asserting that defense counsel's representation of Richie and Alves created a possible conflict of interest. This memorandum is inadequate because it is simply an uncorroborated assertion of counsel and not an affidavit or sworn testimony. [21] Richie also argues that trial counsel erred in failing to object to the jury instruction defining a RICO "enterprise" and in failing to offer a correct instruction. Due to our disposition of Richie's RICO conviction supra part II.B, it is unnecessary for us to address this issue.