Opinion ID: 1163316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On February 27, 1991, a complaint was filed in the circuit court charging Pulse with one count of violating HRS § 134-6(a), one count of violating HRS § 134-6(b), and two counts of terroristic threatening, in violation of HRS § 707-716(1)(d) (1993). [2] The circuit court action was assigned criminal number 91-0467. Count I of the complaint charged: On or about the 14th day of February, 1991, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of [Hawai`i], EMIL R. PULSE did knowingly possess or intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a felony, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, thereby committing the offense of Possession, Use or Threat to Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, in violation of Section 134-6(a) and (d) of the [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes. Count II of the complaint charged: On or about the 14th day of February, 1991, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of [Hawai`i], EMIL R. PULSE did carry or possess a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver without a license issued as provided in Section 134-9 of the [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes and did fail to confine said pistol or revolver as required under Section 134-6(b) of the [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes, thereby committing the offense of Place to Keep Loaded Firearm or Pistol or Revolver, a Class B felony, in violation of Section 134-6(b) and (d) of the [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes. In addition, both of the terroristic threatening counts charged Pulse with the use of a dangerous instrument, to wit, a firearm. [3] The incident that gave rise to the charges took place at Keehi Lagoon Harbor. Pulse and his girlfriend, Hai Thi Nguyen (also known as Sandy), lived on a boat that was located on the 600 pier, and an acquaintance of theirs, Steve Cartagena, lived on a boat on the 700 pier. According to the prosecution's theory of the case, after an argument between Pulse and Sandy on the night of February 13, 1991, Sandy had gone to the boat where Cartagena lived. Then, shortly after midnight on February 14, 1991, Pulse boarded Cartagena's boat with a loaded revolver and demanded to see Sandy. Pulse shoved the revolver into Cartagena's abdominal region and threatened to shoot both Cartagena and Sandy. After an exchange of words, Pulse returned to his boat, where he was later arrested. On April 15, 1991, Pulse filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by the police when they boarded his boat, arrested him, and seized a gun located therein. On June 18 and 19, 1991, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Pulse's motion to suppress. Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Timothy Mariani was the sole witness called by the prosecution. He testified that on February 14, 1991, after receiving a call from Harbor Patrol regarding an incident involving a firearm at Keehi Lagoon Harbor, he proceeded to the harbor. When he arrived, he met with Officer Keith Becker of the Harbor Patrol who informed him that one male (Pulse) had threatened another male (Cartagena) with a firearm and that the suspect was on a boat in slip number 618. The boat located in that slip was registered to Pulse. Officer Mariani walked down the finger pier next to the boat and, with the aid of a flashlight, looked into the cabin. He observed Pulse lying down on a mattress, asleep, and what appeared to be the butt of a handgun next to him. Officer Mariani had started to point [the handgun] out to HPD Officer William Lurbe and Officer Becker, who were behind him on the finger pier, when he saw Pulse move. Because he was afraid that Pulse would awake, in order to protect the safety of everyone in the vicinity, he and some of the other officers boarded the boat and seized the handgun. According to Officer Mariani, they did not wake Pulse until after the handgun had been seized. Pulse was then wakened and escorted off of the boat. After Officer Mariani completed his testimony, Pulse called several of the other officers who had been involved to testify. Officer Lurbe testified that the finger pier was [m]aybe 30 feet, 25, 30 feet long and that the boat was longer than the finger pier. Prior to boarding the boat, Officer Lurbe never saw anything inside of the boat. He testified, however, that, while Officer Mariani was standing on the far end of the finger pier, Officer Mariani stated that he could see a male and a handgun inside the cabin. He further testified that he and Officer Mariani boarded the boat and proceeded to the doorway of the cabin, that Officer Mariani recovered a handgun from the bed area where [Pulse] was sleeping, and that Pulse did not awake at that time. Pulse then called Hawai`i State Marine Patrol officer Terry Lyman Gaeta, who testified that she had observed Pulse go onto a boat on the 700 pier and then stagger back towards the 600 pier. She saw Pulse carrying what appeared to be a beer can and did not see anything that appeared to be a weapon. When the HPD officers arrived later, she accompanied them to Pulse's boat. She testified that the length of the finger pier was [m]aybe about 20, 25 feet at most, maybe a little bit less. She did not walk onto the finger pier but stayed on the main pier near the bow of the boat. While there, she saw the HPD officers standing on the finger pier, shining a flashlight into the boat and looking inside. She also heard one of the officers say that he saw a man who appeared to be sleeping on board and that he saw a gun. Officer Becker testified that he met up with the HPD officers on the night in question and walked onto the finger pier next to Pulse's boat. While on the finger pier, Officer Becker did not see the handgun, but he did see it after he boarded the boat and was standing on the deck looking into the cabin. Pulse then sought to have Earl Aku, an investigator from the Public Defender's Office, testify, and the following exchange took place: THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], your offer of proof with respect to this witness. [Defense Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor. In light of yesterday's testimony, I was very concerned regarding the evidence that came out. Therefore, at 7:30 this morning, my investigator and myself went out to the scene and took photographs. I think it is crucial for the court to have an opportunity to view these photographs and the scene. The boat is at the same slip and at the same location it was on February 14th, 1991. I think it would help or assist the court in its determination as to whether or not there was actually justification to this warrantless search. And therefore, I have brought my investigator to not only describe, through his testimony, how the pier looks and the finger pier looks out but, also, photographs reflecting the finger pier, the pier, and the vessel itself. THE COURT: When you say justification for the warrantless entry, what are you referring to? The ability to see the handgun? [Defense Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. [Prosecutor]? [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, the State does object. [Defense Counsel] tells us it's the same as that early morning. But we have had four people testify as to what they saw that particular morning. And certainly the investigator from the Public Defender's Office is not able to tell the court more than the four people who were there on the morning in question. And we don't know if there are any changes. I mean [Defense Counsel] has said that there are not. But he wasn't there that morning. So we do object to the pictures, Your Honor. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I didn't mean to make any representations that there were not any changes. If there is a further foundational requirement regarding whether or not the photos accurately reflect the scene on February 14th, 1991, my client may be able to lay the proper foundation. So any objections regarding that, I would respectfully submit, is premature at this time. THE COURT: Okay. Well, while the court finds that it may be helpful, the court would like to just go with the testimony of the witnesses on that night in question. So the court's not going to take additional testimony concerning the photographs or investigation done this morning. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, can I have a basis on the ruling for refusal to allow this type of evidence. My investigator can describe specifically the length of the finger pier in question at the time. And that is crucial as to whether or not the officer was actually capable of viewing inside the cabin. THE COURT: Well, the reason for the ruling is this. We have sufficient testimony or there's been a number of witnesses concerning that issue. And the court finds that there's sufficient evidence for the court to make a ruling based on that information. Pulse then took the stand himself. He testified that he was the owner of the sailboat that was located at slip 618 on February 14, 1991, and that he lived on the sailboat at that time. Pulse testified as follows regarding the length of the finger pier: Approximate length, I guess it would only be around 12 feet. Pulse then identified and authenticated eleven photographs that fairly and accurately depict[ed] how Pulse's boat and the pier and finger pier next to it looked on February 14, 1991, except that on that date there was a yellow tarp covering part of the boat, from the mast all the way to the rear of the boat. All eleven photographs were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court orally denied Pulse's motion, and it later entered its written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, which provided, in pertinent part: 1. In the late night hours of February 13, 1991 or the early morning hours of February 14, 1991, Steve Cartagena was apparently terrorized by the defendant by the use of a handgun; this information was related to Harbor Patrol, and later to the Honolulu Police Department. . . . . 3. Officer Mariani while on public property, the finger pier, and with the use of a flashlight, looked inside the defendant's boat. Officer Mariani saw the defendant sleeping inside the boat, and what appeared to be the butt of a gun beside the defendant. Officer Mariani saw the defendant stir. Fearing for the safety of the officers, the defendant, and the public, Officer Mariani decided to board the defendant's boat to get the gun. 4. Officer Mariani's testimony was confirmed by Harbor Patrol Officer Gaeta's and Officer Lurbe's testimony. Officers Gaeta and Lurbe testified that Officer Mariani said I see the gun while Officer Mariani was on the finger pier. Both Officers Gaeta and Lurbe testified that Officer Mariani said he saw the gun while he was on the finger pier by the stern of defendant's boat. 5. There was no contrary evidence to the testimony that the sighting of defendant's weapon by Officer Mariani occurred when Officer Mariani was on public property. 6. The question as to whether the finger pier was 25 feet long or 12 feet long is not sufficient to raise a specter of reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of Officer Mariani. . . . . 9. There was probable cause to search plus exigent circumstances and the recovery of the defendant's gun was proper. On July 10, 1991, Pulse filed a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress. An affidavit in support of the motion further detailed the testimony that Aku could provide, as follows: a. He is an investigator for the Office of the Public Defender. b. That he took numerous photographs of the scene where the alleged incident took place. c. That he measured the length of the finger pier where Officer Mariani allegedly saw the defendant on February 14, 1991. d. That the finger pier was 16 feet from end to end, up to and including the main pier. e. That the photographs were taken from both ends of the finger pier. f. That Mr. Aku was unable to view within the cabin area of defendant's boat from any position of the entire finger pier. g. That Mr. Aku would testify that it would be virtually impossible for anyone to see within the cabin area of defendant's boat by standing on the fingerpier. On July 17, 1991, the circuit court held a hearing on Pulse's motion for reconsideration. With respect to the photographs the court stated: Okay, there's already been testimony concerning the photographs from the defendant when he took the stand. The court later reiterated: [W]ith respect to the photographs that Mr. Aku would have been able to testify to, there's already been sufficient testimony from the defendant himself concerning these photographs as to various locations. With respect to the length of the finger pier, the court stated: [W]ith respect to the offer of proof that Mr. Aku would be able to testify that the pier was only 16 feet from end to end, there's already been testimony by the defendant that it was actually 12 feet. So this evidence has already been also considered. [4] With respect to the remainder of Aku's proffered testimony, the court stated: Finally, with respect to the testimony that Mr. Aku would have been able to provide, which is that virtually no one can see within this cabin area unless they are standing on the water, it would just raise an issue of credibility. And, again, this has to do with the person's ability  one particular person's ability to see, Officer Mariani, in the night in question. And Mr. Aku apparently has not been at the scene during the evening hours so that he would be able to make that statement with respect to the conditions at night as opposed to during the day. On January 8, 1992, Pulse filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint because it did not identify the underlying felony charged in the HRS § 134-6(a) count of the indictment. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, but directed the prosecution to file a bill of particulars identifying the underlying felony. On March 10, 1992, a bill of particulars was filed, which stated: In Count I the Defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony, to wit, Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree. On May 6, 1992, Pulse filed another motion to dismiss Count I, this time based on the prosecution's failure to identify which type of terroristic threatening in the first degree it was alleging that Pulse committed. [5] After a hearing, the circuit court entered an order denying the motion but ordering that another bill of particulars be filed. On August 6, 1992, the prosecution filed an amended bill of particulars, which stated: In Count I the Defendant was engaged in the commission of an offense, to wit, Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, by threats made in a common scheme against different persons; or with the use of a dangerous instrument. (Emphasis in original.) On August 19, 1992, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice for violation of Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48. [6] Pulse had requested, in his motion to dismiss, that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The court ruled otherwise, stating: The charge involves a Class A felony. This is the most serious level of felony. In addition, the conduct here charges assaultive behavior with a firearm. The record does not indicate that the State sought to delay the trial herein. Under these circumstances, reprosecution would not be adverse to the administration of justice. Therefore, dismissal will be without prejudice. Shortly thereafter, on August 27, 1992, an indictment was filed charging Pulse with one count of violating HRS § 134-6(a) and one count of violating HRS § 134-6(b). A new criminal number was assigned  criminal number 92-2575. Count I of the indictment charged: On or about the 14th day of February, 1991, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of [Hawai`i], EMIL R. PULSE did knowingly possess or intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a felony, to wit, Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, by threats made in a common scheme against different persons, and with the use of a dangerous instrument, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not, thereby committing the offense of Possession, Use or Threat to Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, in violation of Section 134-6(a) and (d) of the [Hawai`i] Revised Statutes. At a hearing on September 4, 1992, the circuit court set Pulse's trial for the week of September 14, 1992. Pulse's attorney made the following representations at that time: I want to assure the Court from day one that we had no desire to unduly continue this matter. . . . So we are going to be ready to go to trial. . . . . I haven't even seen the indictment. I know one thing, I think there is going to be  there is going to be a couple of issues and one of them is, I understand they predicate a felony and a threat, he threatened two people and the status is pursuant to a plan or scheme. I don't know if they got that in the indictment. They may be issues that I can't  . . . . I don't know if the defense can be ready that fast to go to trial and not have to waive all kinds of rights. Prior to trial, Pulse made a motion for a continuance. A hearing on the motion was held on September 15, 1992. Defense counsel represented that a continuance was required to allow Pulse to conduct a factual investigation of the incident giving rise to the charges and to make motions, inter alia, to suppress evidence and to dismiss Count I of the indictment. The circuit court denied the motion to continue, ruling in pertinent part as follows: 2. The Court finds that this case can proceed to trial without further delay because: . . . . b. Based upon representations of counsel, the motion to suppress the gun is no different than the one previously ruled on in Cr. No. 91-0467; therefore, the Court will authorize the trial judge to hear the motion to suppress only on the basis of new evidence. c. The trial judge may exercise its discretion to hear the motion to dismiss Count I; however, it may do so only on issues not previously heard by [the court]; and if there is disagreement as to what those issues are, the trial judge will make that determination. The next day, Pulse filed a motion in limine in open court in which he essentially sought (1) to have Count I of the indictment dismissed and (2) to have the gun and any reference thereto suppressed. After hearing arguments from counsel, the circuit court denied both aspects of the motion in limine. At the hearing, Pulse requested that the prosecution turn over photographs that had been taken by the police at the time of the incident. The prosecution represented that the photographs had not been developed prior to the original suppression hearing and that once they had been developed, counsel could have obtained them directly from the HPD through the standard procedure. Pulse's attorney was then given the opportunity to examine the photographs during the following recess. After examining the photographs, Pulse again moved to reopen the suppression issue based on what the photographs showed and based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct in failing to produce the photographs prior to the original suppression hearing. [7] The court denied the motion. The case then proceeded to trial. After all of the evidence was received, the circuit court instructed the jury on the law to be applied. The jury was instructed that, in order to convict Pulse of the HRS § 134-6(a) charge, the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, that Pulse was engaged in the commission of a felony. The jury was then instructed that terroristic threatening in the first degree as defined under HRS § 707-716(1)(d)  i.e., terroristic threatening [w]ith the use of a dangerous instrument  was a felony offense. The jury was not instructed with respect to terroristic threatening in the first degree under HRS § 707-716(1)(b)  i.e., terroristic threatening [b]y threats made in a common scheme against different persons[.] On September 21, 1992, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged on both counts of the indictment. On December 3, 1992, the circuit court entered judgment, sentencing Pulse to a twenty-year indeterminate term for the HRS § 134-6(a) conviction and a ten-year indeterminate term for the HRS § 134-6(b) conviction, the two terms of incarceration to be served concurrently. Pulse thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal.