Opinion ID: 870427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Confusion of the Issues

Text: HRE Rule 403 provides in part that relevant[] evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of ... confusion of the issues[.] During its deliberations, the jury submitted jury question 1, which asked, To what purpose do we put the evidence and testimony from S. Dakota[?] The court responded simply by referring the jury back to the instruction limiting the consideration of prior bad acts. The jury was given no further explanation with regard to that question. Transcripts of the proceedings do not indicate that the court gave the jury a cautionary instruction with regard to the purposes for which complainant's testimony of prior bad acts could be considered at the time she testified. The jury's confusion as to the introduction of prior bad acts is apparent from the jury's question even after it had been instructed on the use of such evidence. Nevertheless, the majority maintains that Petitioner's intensified efforts to maintain his relationship of trust and control with [complainant] after they returned from Hawai`i... would be likely to confuse rather than enlighten the jury absent the context provided by the prior conduct in South Dakota. Majority opinion at ___, 237 P.3d at 1173. To the contrary, the jury's question to the judge indicates that the prior act evidence was the cause of confusion. Details regarding the uncharged conduct were not relevant to the charged offenses and obviously only served to distract the jury from the principle issue of Petitioner's guilt for the offenses that were charged. Rather than confusing the jury as declared by the majority, Petitioner's intensified efforts to assert control over complainant established how Petitioner was able to assert himself as the central authority figure amidst complainant's dysfunctional family relationships. Petitioner's behavior, as testified to by complainant and sister, explained the matters that the majority maintains were inexplicable absent the evidence of prior bad acts. Given the minimal benefit derived from the evidence of prior bad acts and the disproportionate confusion it generated, as demonstrated by the jury's question to the court, the cost-benefit analysis plainly weighed in favor of excluding the evidence. Evidentiary decisions based on HRE Rule 403, which require a `judgment call' on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai`i 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995) (citing Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai`i 14, 19, 897 P.2d 941, 946 (1995)). Hence, the court abused its discretion in admitting such evidence.