Title: State v. Iwasaki
Citation: 581 P.2d 1171
Docket Number: 6002
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: July 28, 1978

581 P.2d 1171 (1978) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitsuhiro IWASAKI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 6002. Supreme Court of Hawaii. July 28, 1978. Charles H. Silva, Jr., Honolulu (Bicoy &amp; Yamane, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellant. Keith L. Walker, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and KOBAYASHI, OGATA, MENOR and KIDWELL, JJ. PER CURIAM. The defendant was found guilty of promoting prostitution in the second degree. He appeals from the judgment and sentence of the trial court. The only issue on appeal which requires our serious consideration is, whether certain statements made outside of the presence of the defendant were admissible against him. We find all other defense contentions to be without merit. The defendant was indicted for the crime of advancing or profiting from prostitution "by managing, supervising, controlling, or owning, either alone or in association with others, a prostitution business or enterprise involving prostitution activity by two or more prostitutes." See HRS § 712-1203 (1)(a). On the date of the alleged offense Officers Ballew and Kawamura, in plain *1172 clothes and posing as tourists, had gone to the BPM Club located at 1550 Rycroft Street in Honolulu. They were met at the door by the defendant who, after satisfying himself that they were indeed "tourists," admitted them into the establishment. Officer Ballew testified: Officer Ballew further testified over the objection of the defendant: Officer Nakamura testified that the defendant told him to wait in the room assigned to him. After a few minutes a female who told him her name was Eva [Ellen Cofield] entered the room. When asked what then transpired, the officer answered over the objection of the defendant: The defendant argues that while the statements of Elaine Dunbar and Ellen Cofield may have been admissible in a prosecution against them, they were inadmissible hearsay as against him. We disagree. The defendant was accused of promoting prostitution "involving prostitution activity by two or more prostitutes." Whether Elaine Dunbar and Ellen Cofield were engaged in prostitution activity at the time in question was necessarily relevant to the offense for which the defendant was indicted. The statements attributed to the two women were made by participants during the course of events, and thus were part of the transaction constituting the alleged violation. These were verbal acts serving to illuminate or to explain the nature of the activity in which the women and the defendant were engaged, and as facts constituting a part of the transaction, they were admissible in evidence under the rule of res gestae.[1]State v. Malena, 4 Conn.Cir. 594, 237 A.2d 572 (1967); State v. Forsythe, 243 La. 460, 144 So. 2d 536 (1962). See also State v. Ranger, 149 Me. 52, 98 A.2d 652 (1953); Ward v. United States, 296 F.2d 898 (5 Cir.1962). Affirmed. [1] We need not discuss whether the statements might also have been admissible under agency and conspiracy doctrines.