Opinion ID: 4541428
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Korenic’s testimony

Text: On October 27, 2016, Officer Korenic testified as follows. On April 5, 2016, Officer Korenic was assigned to patrol Honolulu parks for park closure and rules violations. At approximately 3:45 a.m., he was walking along the edge of the Ala Moana Beach Park when he saw a male, later identified as Stone, sitting on top of a picnic table approximately sixty feet inside the park boundary. To address the park closure violation, he approached Stone, who was faced towards him. While approaching Stone, he saw many items on Stone’s lap and on 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the picnic table, and Stone was “[j]ust touching them, and I imagine he was maybe going through them or looking for something[.]” The area was well lit by lights from the walkway. Officer Korenic stopped approximately six feet away from Stone. Because the HPD typically issued citations for park closure violations, but because it was also an arrestable offense, Officer Korenic asked Stone for his information. Stone responded that he did not have identification, and when Officer Korenic asked “what his information was,” Stone stated he had the right to remain silent. After ten minutes of trying to get Stone’s information, Officer Korenic told Stone that he would be arrested if he did not provide his identity. Stone remained uncooperative. Stone then threw “like a press seal type baggie, maybe an inch by an inch, maybe inch and a half at the largest, with his right hand,” which landed to Stone’s right on the picnic table. Inside the baggie was “a white crystalline substance that, due to [his] training and experience,” Officer Korenic “recognize[d] to be –- [] a narcotic.” He clearly saw the baggie because the area was well lit by lights from the walkway and his flashlight. Officer Korenic placed Stone under arrest, and the baggie stayed on the table throughout the entire investigation. Officer Korenic identified State’s Exhibits 14 through 17, which were then admitted into evidence and published to the 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  jury. State’s Exhibit 16 is a photograph of the top of the picnic table with various IDs, membership cards, bank cards, and a bag strewn about on its surface.7 Stone was sitting in the area without items in State’s Exhibit 16. Officer Korenic verified ownership of the items depicted in State's Exhibit 16 through a “found property policy”; the items did not belong to Stone. None of the individuals who owned these items were present in the park, none of those individuals approached the table when he saw Stone, and “they had to come later.” On cross-examination, Officer Korenic testified he could not have charged Stone for being in possession of other people’s confidential personal information because Stone was not in possession of the items on the picnic table, as they were on the table. He generated multiple found property reports for those items, as he had been trained in the academy to detail everything recovered. When defense counsel asked about the iPhone Found Property Report being the only such report, Officer Korenic claimed there were several other found property reports for the other recovered items. Defense counsel then showed Officer Korenic the five HPD reports that had been provided to the defense in discovery. 7 State’s Exhibit 14 is a photograph of the picnic table in relation to the sidewalk. State’s Exhibit 15 is a photograph of the park bench at a closer view. State’s Exhibit 17 is a photograph of the methamphetamine baggie placed next to a penny for comparative size. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  After reviewing the reports, Officer Korenic stated, “There is a report number that’s not here.” The circuit court excused the jury, then held a bench conference regarding Officer Korenic’s testimony that there was a missing report. Defense counsel stated that it appeared Officer Korenic was testifying to discovery that had not been provided to the defense. The State responded, “[T]he defense is in receipt of all reports received by the State from the police department. In reviewing the reports as turned over, there is no reference to other report numbers.” Defense counsel then moved for mistrial: And generally in this situation, my understanding is if there are reports generated out of the same incident, there should be connecting reports referred to in the discovery, and there are not any. So I don’t know if the officer is deliberately trying to fabricate something at this point or hiding additional reports, I don’t know, but at this point, you know, we’d rely to our detriment in terms of questioning the officer. I mean, I feel compelled to move for a mistrial. I mean, I don’t think the officer’s been up front in –- or I mean HPD has been up front with disclosing everything to the defense at this point. The circuit court did not rule on the oral motion for mistrial, instead stating: THE COURT: I mean, I understand your position. I’m not -- I don’t think the record’s there yet. I think I need more information. We can put the witness on the stand outside the presence of the jury, and you can try and establish a record for what you’re arguing. Right now we’re just speculating. He could just be wrong, we don’t know. I mean, I think -- personally I’d like to know why does he think there’s a report that's not here, and follow that trail wherever it leads. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Well, first, the State does acknowledge that usually if there is a connecting report, there’s a reference to it, the State would receive it, and 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  then turn it over in discovery. All reports received by the State have been provided to the defense. THE COURT: I understand what you’re saying, [deputy prosecuting attorney], but the witness has said something that’s concerning, and I need to get to the bottom of it. Officer Korenic was brought back for defense counsel to conduct voir dire. Defense counsel asked, “So in the report that you submitted for this case, there is no mention of any connecting reports, correct?” Having reviewed Court’s Exhibits A-E, Officer Korenic responded, “Incorrect,” stating there were six related reports listed on the front page of the incident report. Because the State had not received the six related reports from HPD, the circuit court recessed for the State to procure them for defense review. During the mid-trial recess, the State procured, and defense counsel reviewed, the six related reports. The State indicated the missing related reports were irrelevant because they referred to another incident with another defendant. Defense counsel responded: Just so that the jury is not left with the belief that it pertains to my client, I would like the opportunity to at least clarify with the officer and –- because he had related that there were other reports that were, I guess, created with respect to the found property, and that these are not them basically. . . . . And these are not them, and they don’t have to deal with my client. Upon resuming cross-examination, Officer Korenic, having reviewed the six related reports procured during the mid-trial 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  recess, admitted they had nothing to do with Stone. With respect to whether there were additional found property reports, however, the following exchange occurred: Q. Also in your report, the last page of your report, there is a section entitled Related Reports, correct? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And there are two report numbers under that report, correct? A. Can I see it? (Reviewing.) Yes, ma’am. Q. And those reports are for Park Closure under 16-136880 and Found Property, 16-136878, correct? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And the found property report is the report that I had previously shown you, correct? A. Yes, ma’am, I remember that. Q. And the only item that was detailed in that report is the iPhone, correct? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. Other than that, there are no other found property reports in your –- A. That’s correct. Q. So there’s no other itemization of any items that were recovered in your report, correct? A. Not in that report, no. (Emphasis added.) Thus, Officer Korenic’s testimony indicated there were other found property reports containing itemization of the items. Officer Korenic also conceded there was no mention in his report that Stone had other people’s IDs around him. Despite seeing other people’s IDs around Stone, Officer Korenic did not obtain a search warrant to search Stone’s belongings. He also did not obtain a search warrant to search for drug related paraphernalia after he saw the methamphetamine baggie. There were no drug paraphernalia items on the picnic table, and there was no mention of drug paraphernalia, such as a 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  scraper, straw, lighter, or pipe, in his report; the only indication of a presence of drugs was the baggie. On redirect examination, Officer Korenic clarified that the six related reports were not referenced in the narrative of his incident report, and only two related reports (park closure and iPhone Found Property Report) were referenced in the narrative. Although he was trained to document things like his observations or the elements of a crime, there were times he did not document some details, either through oversight or mistake. In this case, he had testified about what he did and observed from memory. He also answered in the affirmative when the State said, “I think it would be fair to say at this point that maybe there’s some things that your report had that were mistakes.” He did not, however, correct his previous testimony regarding the existence of other found property reports. On recross-examination, Officer Korenic stated there was “some form of ID” in State’s Exhibit 16 and he did not document that it was not Stone’s ID and did not identify whose ID it was.