Opinion ID: 4527904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Misty Quiocho

Text: Martin challenges Quiocho’s cross-examination testimony elicited by the State that Martin was avoiding the police because he had a warrant. Martin objected to this testimony on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of direct examination, but the State elicited this testimony in response to Quiocho’s direct testimony that Martin was fearful of and tried to avoid the police. Quiocho was Martin’s girlfriend for several years up to the date of the offenses, and her testimony about Martin avoiding the police was probative of Martin’s state of mind. Also, its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Even if Martin had objected to this testimony on HRE Rule 403 grounds based on it being cumulative, which it may have been, reviewing the admission of this testimony under the plain error standard, Martin’s substantial rights were not violated. Therefore, the ICA did not err in concluding there was no plain error affecting Martin’s substantial rights as to Quiocho’s testimony.