Title: State v. Sherman
Citation: 770 P.2d 789
Docket Number: 12955
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 1989

770 P.2d 789 (1989) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall SHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 12955. Supreme Court of Hawaii. March 15, 1989. As Amended April 10, 1989. *790 Douglas J. Sameshima, Wailuku, Maui, for defendant-appellant. Gregory N. Dolton, Deputy Pros. Atty., Wailuku, Maui, for plaintiff-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. Appellant was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, HRS § 707-736(1)(b) and one count of Sodomy in the Second Degree, HRS § 707-734(1)(b). We affirm the conviction under Count I, one of the two counts for Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, but reverse the conviction under Counts II &amp; III, being one count of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, and one count of Sodomy in the Second Degree, and remand for a new trial. We reject appellant's contentions of error, except those with respect to the alleged prejudicial effect of the combination of (1) the prosecution's failure to disclose the specific dates of the first two sexual offenses by appellant upon the minor complaining witness, and (2) the denial of a reasonable continuance to provide the specifics of a possible alibi defense. Counts II &amp; III of the indictment read as follows: Appellant moved for a Bill of Particulars and, after considerable resistance by the State, the motion was granted on September 21, 1987. The pertinent portion of the order granting the motion stated: The Bill of Particulars was eventually filed on October 16, 1987 and with respect to Counts II &amp; III stated as follows: The indictment in this case was returned July 10, 1987. On September 8, 1987, appellant, pursuant to HRPP 12.1, filed a Notice of Alibi. On October 27, 1987, appellant filed a Motion to Invoke Notice of *791 Alibi, requesting the trial court to enter an order compelling the State to disclose the information and witnesses pursuant to HRPP 12.1(b). On November 12, 1987, the court below entered an order on said motion stating that sufficient notice had been given to the appellant of the date of the offense in the Bill of Particulars. HRPP 12.1 reads, in part, as follows: At trial, on the first day of evidence, the complaining witness testified that the first two occasions of sexual abuse were on the Friday and Saturday nights of the 1984 Maui County Fair, which she went to with the appellant. This was the first time the specific dates of those offenses had been disclosed to the appellant. The next day another minor witness for the prosecution testified that the appellant took her, and the complaining witness, to the Maui County Fair, on the Friday night on which it was held in 1984. It is obvious, from the complaining witness's testimony, which was clear, specific, and detailed, with respect to the two days on which the alleged offenses occurred, that the prosecution had to have known of those specific dates well before the beginning of the trial on November 30, 1987. The prosecution had not revealed those two dates when it filed the Bill of Particulars, and it had not complied with the express requirement, in HRPP 12.1(b), that it supply the "specific ... date(s)" of the offenses. After the testimony had come out at trial, appellant's counsel moved for a dismissal of the charges, or for mistrial, because the prosecution had not disclosed the specific dates, and had thereby prevented appellant from raising an alibi defense with respect to those dates. During argument the following occurred: (Underscoring Supplied). Hawaii has long recognized that, in cases involving sexual abuse of minors, it is sufficient, in the indictment, to allege that the offense occurred over a particular time span; Territory v. Low, 35 Haw. 571 (1940); Territory v. Izumi, 34 Haw. 209 (1937). The fact that the prosecution may be unable, in a particular case, because of a minor's inability to recall a specific date, to allege, in the indictment, the time of the offense with more specificity than a time frame, does not excuse the failure to give a specific date, when that is known, nor to supply the date, if it later becomes known, as is required by HRPP 12.1. Such specificity, of known dates, was also implicitly required in the court's order for a Bill of Particulars. When the specific dates were brought out, for the first time at trial, appellant's counsel moved for a dismissal or a mistrial, but in the exchange with the court, also asked for a continuance. The court denied any relief whatsoever, because the the appellant could not supply any specifics with respect to the alibi defense, other than his own statement that he did not take the complaining witness to the fair in 1984. The court's action was error, albeit that it was occasioned by the prosecutor's breach of his duties under HRPP 12.1(b). HRPP 12.1(a) and (b) set forth four steps which are to be followed in connection with an alibi defense. What happened here is that the prosecutor did not comply with step 2. Consequently, *793 appellant was unable to comply with step 3. Yet, it is appellant's compliance with step 3, that the court, in effect, required in denying a continuance. Obviously, the fault lay not with the appellant, who was not given the information, known to the prosecution, of the specific dates of the first two offenses, but with the prosecution. HRPP 12.1 differs from the parallel provision federal criminal rule 12.1 in several particulars, although the purpose is the same. Our Rule 12.1(b) does not set a specific time limit for the prosecution's disclosure as does the federal rule. Obviously, therefore, after the written notice of alibi by the defense, the prosecution is obliged, within a reasonable time, to make available the specifics required by the rule and obviously also, the defense, within a reasonable time after those specifics have been made available, must provide the information which the rule requires be given to the prosecution. In upholding the constitutionality of HRPP 12.1 in State v. Davis, 63 Haw. 191, 624 P.2d 376 (1981), we noted that the purpose of the rule was to provide reciprocal discovery between the prosecution and the defense. We quoted Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1970), at pages 81 and 82, 90 S.Ct. at pages 1895 and 1896 as follows: The complaining witness' testimony was that the first two offenses occurred on a Friday and Saturday night of the Maui County Fair in 1984, which she had attended with the appellant. This testimony appeared for the first time on the second day of trial, December 1, 1987. On the third day a minor witness corroborated the complaining witness' attendance with appellant at the Maui County Fair on the Friday night in 1984. The trial was being held three years after the event. It had been less than a full day since the specific date had been revealed, when the appellant made his motion, yet the court below denied the requested continuance because he could not, at that point, come up with the specifics of a possible alibi defense. Thus, the court below compounded the prosecution's offense in not complying with HRPP 12.1(b), by placing the unreasonable, and well-nigh impossible, burden of immediately coming up with the specifics of an alibi defense while the trial was continuing, before it would grant a continuance. Because the prosecution had failed to follow the requirements of HRPP 12.1(b), the court below should have conducted an inquiry into when the prosecution first learned of the specific dates, and should have given consideration to appropriate sanctions. The court below should also have granted a reasonable continuance for appellant to try to ascertain whether he had attended the 1984 Maui County Fair, and if so, with whom, and to produce witnesses to corroborate his contention that he did not attend that fair with the complaining witness. No one expects the prosecution to supply more information, under HRPP 12.1(b), than it has. But the prosecution does have a duty to supply what specific information it does have, and that duty was breached in this case. That breach led to the error. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on Counts II and III.