Opinion ID: 4541427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State’s answering brief

Text: The State first noted that HRE Rule 608(b) “allows crossexamination of a witness concerning specific instances of 4 Under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 35(e) (2010), “[w]hen used in an opinion or dispositional order, the word ‘reverse’ ends litigation on the merits, and the phrase ‘vacate and remand’ indicates the litigation continues in the court or agency in accordance with the appellate court’s instruction.” Su’s opening brief appears to have requested that the ICA vacate and remand the district court’s judgment. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  conduct that are relevant to the trait of credibility” and “governs attack of a witness by revelation of that witness’ relevant misdeeds,” quoting the Supplemental Commentary to HRE Rule 608. The State argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing cross-examination of Officer Spiker concerning the Kuni, Lee, and Thomas proceedings. First, with respect to the Kuni proceedings, the State argued that the Kuni transcripts showed that Officer Spiker “made a mistake as opposed to showing that Officer Spiker was untruthful.” Second, with respect to the Lee proceedings, the State pointed out that the transcripts do not bear out any express finding by Judge Kupau that Officer Spiker was “uncredible”; rather, Judge Kupau found Officer Spiker’s testimony concerning distances and speeds did not make physical sense. Third, with respect to the Thomas proceedings, the State argued that defense counsel had not put the video-recording into evidence at Su’s trial5; therefore, there was no basis to argue that the video-recording would demonstrate Officer Spiker’s untruthfulness. Further, the State pointed out that Su’s counsel himself argued that Officer Spiker may not necessarily be untruthful, as follows: “Well, I mean, I don’t know if I want to say [Officer Spiker is] lying, but . . . 5 The State did not appear to acknowledge Su’s counsel’s assertion in his Notice of Intent #3 that the prosecution had destroyed the Thomas videorecording. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  what he puts in his report is very inaccurate of what actually transpired.”