Opinion ID: 2629770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Iona's map

Text: Third, Cordeiro contends that the circuit court erred in sustaining the prosecution's objection to the relevance of the location of the repository in which Iona kept the second map that he received from Cordeiro indicating the site of Freitas's home. Cordeiro suggests that [f]inding out where or who [Iona] gave the map to was an effective and proper method of cross-examination. Especially if the person who Iona claimed was holding the map could be subpoenaed and brought to court and then denied Iona's claims. [29] The prosecution argues that the specific place in which Iona kept the map was irrelevant and, even if it was relevant, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the prosecution that the location in which Iona kept the second map given to him by Cordeiro was not relevant. The chain of custody of the map might have been highly relevant for purposes of challenging its authenticity during voir dire, but Cordeiro did not challenge the receipt of the map into evidence based on its authenticity. Consequently, for purposes of determining whether the place in which the map was kept was relevant, we must determine whether location had a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. HRE Rule 401. Cordeiro does not propose how the location of the map made the existence of any fact more or less probable. He simply suggests that his defense counsel might hypothetically have been able to impeach Iona based upon his answer to the question. But almost any testimony could potentially be used to impeach a witness in that fashion; a purely speculative answer to an otherwise irrelevant question does not bootstrap the question into relevance. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the prosecution's objection to the relevance of defense counsel's inquiring into the repository in which Iona secreted the second map. In sum, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of Cordeiro's defense counsel's cross-examination, insofar as the circuit court merely excluded irrelevant and repetitious questions by defense counsel and the exclusions did not result in any manifest prejudice to Cordeiro.