Opinion ID: 1253024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Circuit Court Violated William's Right To Testify.

Text: Although not raised by William on appeal, our review of the record establishes that William's right to testify, as set forth in Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai`i 226, 900 P.2d 1293 (1995), was violated. While the circuit court did engage in a colloquy with William regarding William's understanding of his right to testify, the circuit court failed to elicit an on-the-record waiver of William's right. The circuit court simply asked William's attorney whether William was going [to] testify. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court. Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b). See also Mahoe, 89 Hawai`i at 287, 972 P.2d at 290; Cullen, 86 Hawai`i at 8, 946 P.2d at 962; Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 33, 928 P.2d at 875. Because the circuit court's error infringed upon William's constitutional right to testify, we address it as plain error. The decision to testify is ultimately committed to a defendant's own discretion[.] [ State v. ] Silva, 78 Hawai`i [115,] 124, 890 P.2d [702,] 711 [ (App.1995) ]. See also United States v. Moody, 977 F.2d 1425, 1430 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1052, 113 S.Ct. 1948, 123 L.Ed.2d 653 (1993) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3312-13, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983); American Bar Assoc. Standards Relating to the Admin. of Criminal Justice, Compilation p. 127 (1974)); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 93 n. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2509-10, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (Burger, J., concurring) (Only such basic decisions as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury or testify in one's own behalf are ultimately for the accused to make), reh'g denied, 434 U.S. 880, 98 S.Ct. 241, 54 L.Ed.2d 163 (1977). Thus, a defendant's personal constitutional right to testify truthfully in his [or her] own behalf may not be waived by counsel as a matter of trial strategy, Moody, 977 F.2d at 1431 (quoting United States v. Curtis, 742 F.2d 1070, 1076 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1064, 106 S.Ct. 1374, 89 L.Ed.2d 600 (1986)), but `may be relinquished only by the defendant.' Silva, 78 Hawai`i at 123, 890 P.2d at 710 (quoting United States v. Joelson, 7 F.3d 174, 177 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1019, 114 S.Ct. 620, 126 L.Ed.2d 584 (1993)). Tachibana, 79 Hawai`i at 232, 900 P.2d at 1299 (emphases added) (some brackets added and some in original). A defendant's waiver of a constitutional right must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See, e.g., In re John Doe, Born on November 23, 1978, 90 Hawai`i 246, 253, 978 P.2d 684, 691 (right to remain silent); State v. Merino, 81 Hawai`i 198, 219, 915 P.2d 672, 693 (1996) (right to counsel); Tachibana, 79 Hawai`i at 233-34, 900 P.2d at 1300-01 (right to testify); State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai`i 17, 33, 881 P.2d 504, 520 (1994) (Miranda rights); State v. Young, 73 Haw. 217, 220-21, 830 P.2d 512, 514 (1992) (right to jury trial); see generally Brown v. Thompson, 91 Hawai`i 1, 10 n. 9, 979 P.2d 586, 595 n. 9 (1999). In Tachibana, this court cited with approval the Alaska Court of Appeals's observation that `if the [trial] court does not establish on the record that the defendant has waived his [or her] right to testify, it is extremely difficult to determine at a post-conviction relief hearing whether such a waiver occurred.' 79 Hawai`i at 234, 900 P.2d at 1301 (citing LaVigne v. State, 788 P.2d 52, 55 (Alaska Ct.App.1990)) (emphasis added) (brackets in original). This court went on to hold that, in order to protect the right to testify under the Hawai`i Constitution, trial courts must advise criminal defendants of their right to testify and must obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right in every case in which the defendant does not testify. Tachibana, 79 Hawai`i at 236, 900 P.2d at 1303 (emphasis added). In the present matter, the circuit court did not elicit from William an on-the-record waiver of his right to testify. The record affords no means by which this court can discern whether William actually waived his right to testify or whether the decision was made entirely by his attorney. See id. at 234, 900 P.2d at 1301. Based on the rule established in Tachibana, we hold that the circuit court's failure to establish on the record that William's decision not to testify was made knowingly and voluntarily constituted plain error. Cf. Davia, 87 Hawai`i at 255, 953 P.2d at 1353 (holding that trial court's failure to establish on the record that defendant's no contest plea was knowing and voluntary constituted an abuse of discretion that amounted to plain error).