Opinion ID: 2812090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chin’s Motion for a New Trial

Text: Chin timely filed a Motion for New Trial (motion) based upon an asserted violation of her right to due process, confrontation of witnesses, and a fair trial as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. The motion was supported by a declaration of Charles Bowen (Declaration) who explained that he had been called to testify as a witness at Chin’s trial because as a person who was previously a neighbor to the 6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER complainant, he had information to share regarding some of the events that took place between the complainant and Chin. His Declaration stated that, during trial, a juror approached him in the men’s room and spoke to him about possible employment: 3. During the course of my testimony I explained my job status and the fact that I was a civilian employee of the United States government. I also explained that I had a top secret security clearance. 4. After I testified I was approached in the men’s room by a gentleman. He inquired about the possibility of employment and handed me a business card. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the business card provided by the man. 5. I realized later that the individual who handed me his business card was one of the jurors in Susan Chin’s case; 6. Upon this realization I told Susan about the encounter and gave her the card; 7. I never called or communicated any further with the juror after that encounter in the men’s room. 8. After learning of the verdict in this case I spoke with Susan’s attorney by telephone and told him about the encounter . . . . Attached as Exhibit “A” to the Declaration was a photocopy of a business card with the following information: [JUROR’S NAME], USN Ret. M.A. HSM, B, S. SC&E, A. S. IS line entirely blacked out [apparently street address] Suite xxxxx Honolulu, HI xxxxx Residence: (808)xxxxxxx Mobile: xxxxxxx Facsimile: (808) xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx@hawaiii.rr.com[6] 6 An “x” has been used here to indicate that the information was blacked out on the exhibit that was filed with the court; presumably the (continued . . .) 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The memorandum in support of the motion for new trial indicated that the juror who had provided the business card was the foreperson of the jury in Chin’s case. 7 The memorandum contended that the juror “sought a favor from Ms. Chin’s witness Charles Bowen, which was not forthcoming.” The favor involved “approach[ing] Charles Bowen for a job.” The defense maintained, “The fact that Mr. Bowen did not respond to his advance may have had a significant inappropriate influence on the deliberative process in this case.” Therefore, Chin argued that the actions of the juror “in communicating with Mr. Bowen was highly prejudicial warranting a new trial.” In its response to the motion, the State noted that the granting or denial of a motion for new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and would not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. The State submitted that the legal framework for determining whether a defendant in a criminal case has been denied a fair trial by an impartial jury is for the trial court initially “to determine whether the nature of the alleged deprivation rises to the level of being (continued . . .) blacked out information contained the juror’s address, phone numbers and email address. 7 According to the defense’s memorandum supporting the motion, the foreperson “is a retired United States Navy service member,” which would appear to coincide with the notation on the business card indicating “USN Ret.” 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER substantially prejudicial.” “The defendant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing” of the deprivation. The State maintained that, if the defendant fails to meet her burden, the court is under no duty to investigate the totality of circumstances surrounding the alleged deprivation to determine its impact on jury impartiality. The State argued it was “pure speculation” that Mr. Bowen “may have had a significant inappropriate influence upon the deliberative process.” The State contended that “the defendant must establish that the jury was ‘influenced by the alleged misconduct.’” The State also noted that the contact and communication did not involve inadmissible evidence or any aspect of the case itself. “Instead it involved an insignificant ‘background witness’ who admitted that he had no knowledge of the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of the victim’s house-the main disputed issue during the trial.” Consequently, the State asserted that the defendant failed to present, specific, substantial evidence of possible juror misconduct,” and the court would not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. On May 24, 2013, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion. 8 The court issued written findings of fact, 8 The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing. 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER conclusions of law, and an order on June 5, 2013. The court found Chin’s argument that the improper communication may have had an inappropriate influence on the deliberative process to be “pure speculation.” The court concluded that, based on the record, “the nature of the alleged deprivation did not rise to the level of being ‘substantially prejudicial.’” The court reasoned that the timing and mixed nature of the verdicts undermined Chin’s argument that she was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury. The circuit court also noted that defense counsel requested the court to interrogate the jurors or give defense counsel permission to do so. However, the court concluded that under State v. Furutani, 76 Hawaiʻi 172, 180, 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994), the trial court is under no duty to interrogate the jury unless the defendant presents evidence demonstrating a substantially prejudicial deprivation. Accordingly, the circuit court denied Chin’s motion. The circuit court sentenced Chin to a ten-year term of imprisonment for Counts I and IV and a five-year term of imprisonment for Count VI, all terms to run concurrently, and the court ordered restitution in the amount of $523,762.15 less any amounts recovered from accounts or by law enforcement. The circuit court entered its Judgment of Conviction and Sentence on July 19, 2013. Chin filed a timely notice of appeal. 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER