Opinion ID: 1451206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejecting Connelly

Text: We begin by reiterating the precept that, [w]hen the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of a provision present in both the United States and Hawai`i Constitutions does not adequately preserve the rights and interests sought to be protected, we will not hesitate to recognize the appropriate protections as a matter of state constitutional law. State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 453, 865 P.2d 150, 154 (1994) (citations omitted). Because the Supreme Court's decision in Connelly limits the interests protected by federal constitutional confession law, we find compelling reasons for rejecting Connelly as a model for interpreting our own state constitution. Thus, independent constitutional considerations arising under article I, sections 5 and 10 of the Hawai`i Constitution compel us to hold that the coercive conduct of a private person may be sufficient to render a Defendant's confession involuntary.