Opinion ID: 4541428
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Closing arguments and verdict

Text: In its closing argument, the State argued that whether Officer Korenic made mistakes in the incident report did not matter: Now, the standard we know is beyond a reasonable doubt. And you might be wondering in your mind, well, in order to know that the defendant was in possession of the baggie, we have to rely on Officer Korenic’s testimony. And we do know that, you know, he made some mistakes in that report, so how can I believe what he said? You know, he admitted that there were some mistakes. He left out maybe some related report numbers for the stuff that was on the table, maybe he didn’t fully describe in his report, you know, what was on the table, what IDs there were, who they belonged to, but remember he told us that the purpose of these reports, it’s meant to record the circumstances about what happened, what’s relevant for that case. And this is what Officer Paclib told us too, you know, the purpose of that part of the report is to talk about what is relevant for what the issue is. And this case is, and always has been, about the possession of methamphetamine. And Officer Korenic told us that he was testifying from his memory, that he wasn’t relying on what he had written six months ago, because he remembered what happened. But the report that he wrote recorded who the defendant was, where he was, what time it was, what was going on, what he was doing, what the defendant was doing, what the circumstances were, all related to this baggie of methamphetamine. Now defense might get up here and they might want you to believe that, you know, Officer Korenic and HPD, maybe they planted it, maybe they have nothing better to do with their time than to plant evidence, that they’re not busy dealing with real crime, that they have to make up something, that Officer Korenic isn’t busy enough patrolling the gigantic area that is Ala Moana Beach Park, as well as the other city and county public parks that he patrols, that he carries around little baggies of meth to plant on people. Seriously? They might want you to believe though that because there’s mistakes in his report, that you can’t believe anything that Officer Korenic said. And, yeah, you know what, he admitted he made some mistakes. He came back, he testified. He seemed a little embarrassed, maybe a little sheepish that these mistakes were pointed out, but he was clear about what he remembered, and making a mistake in your report does not make a conspiracy. Let’s also talk a little bit about that other stuff on the picnic table. Officer Korenic told us that they weren’t the defendant’s. Defense might come up here and 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  say that we don’t really know whose it was. But does it even matter? . . . . (Emphasis added.) In her closing statement, defense counsel maintained the defense theory of the case, emphasizing the lack of found property reports for the other items found on the picnic table: So let’s take a look at the evidence presented in this case. One of the key pieces of evidence in this case is this picture, a picture of the bench that Kentaru Stone was sitting at on –- in the early morning of April 5th. Now, if we take Officer Korenic’s explanation as to where everything was positioned, Kentaru was sitting someplace around here, where there was no –- nothing on the table. Officer Korenic was positioned someplace over here, right in between the driver’s license and Mr. Stone. Now, the driver’s license is clearly visible in this picture, and it would’ve been right in front of Officer Korenic, and he was questioning Kentaru for approximately ten minutes. And what you can see in the picture too is also the size of the ID versus the size of the little baggie, and there’s a clear difference in size. And, basically, if you’re focused on getting someone’s identification at this point, I mean, and an ID is clearly in front of you, you’re going to see it. It just doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense that Kentaru would basically empty his wallet in Ala Moana Beach Park at 3:45 in the morning. I mean, it’s dark, it’s dangerous, it’s close to a bus stop. He could get robbed at any time. It just doesn’t make sense that he would do this at 3:45 in the morning. It doesn’t make any sense that Officer Korenic testified that the various cards and ID belonged to other people, because there’s no inventory that was done, which would clearly have been relevant to this case or the other cases if he were going to return it. There’s no police reports for any of the IDs. There’s no mention of people’s IDs, bank cards or club cards mentioned anywhere in his police report. And he did mention doing a found property receipt, and I questioned him, and you got to see his response on the record. The only found property receipt that he put in his report was of the iPhone, nothing else. And why do you think he did that? He probably saw this ID after the fact and had to come up with an explanation as to why it was right there and he didn’t see it. Officer Korenic basically went into Kentaru’s things and rifled through it and just –- it was on the table, he took a picture of it, and only after the fact did he 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  realize that the ID was right there. After all, a picture does say a thousand words. . . . . Officer Korenic is not credible. Officer Korenic knew he had to lie to tie Kentaru to the baggie and to establish knowing possession, and he distinguished that by –- in his testimony that said that’s why they couldn’t arrest him for sitting in a pile of other people’s IDs, because he wasn’t in possession of it. The empty baggie did not belong to Kentaru Stone. It might have been on the table, it might have been someplace in the area, but it’s not defense’s burden to say exactly where it came from. It didn’t belong to Kentaru, and Kentaru wasn’t in knowing position [sic] of the meth residue in the bag. . . . . Officer Korenic’s testimony is contradicted by his own report, the fact that it doesn’t mention that the IDs belonged to other people. Officer Korenic’s testimony is contradicted by the picture which shows Kentaru’s ID clearly right in front of where he would’ve been –- . . . . So you can consider the picture and where Officer Korenic would’ve been right in front of where the ID is. Officer Korenic’s testimony is contradicted by his own actions, not obtaining a search warrant to search Kentaru’s belongings for other IDs and related drug paraphernalia. And Officer Korenic’s testimony is contradicted by Officer Paclib, who testified that it would raise a red flag if she saw an ID that belonged to another individual. She took pictures of the picnic table with all of those IDs sprawled out. Nothing about the IDs that were scattered on the table seemed to raise a red flag with her. And in weighing credibility, you can consider whether they concern matters of importance or matters of unimportant detail, and whether they result from innocent error or deliberate falsehood. Clearly, Officer Korenic’s testimony regarding the IDs present on the table are an important detail, and he deliberately lied on the stand about them. . . . . Hold the State to their burden in this case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only do those discrepancies go to judging Officer Korenic’s credibility, they go to the lack of evidence as well. And let’s talk a little bit about the lack of evidence. Don’t fill in the holes for the State. Require them to provide you with enough credible evidence. Where are 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  these reports for these other IDs? Where are they? The State has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In rebuttal, the State again argued that it did not matter who the items belonged to, and that Officer Korenic was credible despite the mistakes made in his incident report: Ladies and gentlemen, the defense seems to revolve around this photograph, which is State’s Exhibit 16, and they’re asking you to look at what’s in it and identify what they are, who they belong to. But the reality is it doesn’t actually matter, because even if the defendant had been sitting right next to his driver’s license, if an officer asks you for your identification, how’s he supposed to know that that’s yours without you picking it up and handing it to him? All of that is to distract you from what the real question in this case was, is if the defendant possessed methamphetamine on April 5th, 2016. No ques—- it’s not about if he possessed other IDs or if he possessed the bag that’s sitting on the bench, if he possessed any of the other cards that are depicted in State’s Exhibit 16, but it’s whether or not he did possess this little baggie. And we do know exactly where it came from. It came from the defendant’s hand, his hand attached to him. . . . . And if we believe what the defense is arguing, that Officer Korenic isn’t believable because he made some mistakes in his report, then we are actually holding him to a different standard, a higher standard, a standard where his report would need to be flawless in order for us to believe him. . . . . Officer Korenic, you know, he made some mistakes in his report, he admitted that to you, but he’s human, and he is not to be held to a different standard just because he wears a uniform. On October 28, 2016, the jury found Stone guilty of the charged offense. 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER