Opinion ID: 1163293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Challenged Trial Procedures

Text: On March 16, 1993, prior to the commencement of Lee's trial, the prosecution filed a motion, which the trial court took under advisement, to admit into evidence those portions of the preliminary hearing transcript that reflected the testimony of Kyon and Jae Keun. In its supporting memorandum, the prosecution represented that it had maintained location and telephone contact with Kyon until approximately February 1993 and with Jae Keun until December 1992. The prosecution asserted that it had made diligent and numerous attempts to locate both witnesses, but to no avail. To corroborate its assertion, the prosecution attached two affidavits to its motion, one of Elwood Like, an investigator in the employ of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, and the other of Mari McCaig, a victim witness counselor also employed by the Prosecutor's Office. Like averred in his affidavit that, on February 24, 1993, he was assigned to locate, among other witnesses, Kyon and Jae Keun. He represented that his attempts to locate Kyon became futile when Kwi Ha informed him that Kwi Ha had received a long distance telephone call from [Kyon] approximately one month ago and that [Kyon had] stated that[ ] he was not in Hawaii. Like also represented that he checked Jae Keun's address and learned from the present tenant that [Jae Keun had] moved out of the apartment approximately 2 months ago. McCaig averred in her affidavit that she had maintained address and telephone contact with Kyon from September 4, 1992 through February 1993. She also represented that she had been maintaining contact with Jae Keun through Kwi Ha, but that her last knowledge of Jae Keun's whereabouts was in February 1993. On March 18, 1993, the first day of the prosecution's case-in-chief, Detective Charles Chong of the Honolulu Police Department appeared as a witness. Detective Chong testified on direct examination that he had been assigned to investigate the incident at the Club Chateau and had talked with Kyon and Jae Keun at the scene. He further testified that he had been unable to locate either Kyon or Jae Keun. He stated that he believed that Kyon had departed Hawai`i for Korea and that he had no leads as to Jae Keun's whereabouts. Also on March 18, 1993, Kwi Ha was called by the prosecution as a material witness, pursuant to a bench warrant issued by the trial court to insure his presence at trial. On cross-examination by defense counsel, Kwi Ha addressed his relationship with Jae Keun; he expressed his belief that Jae Keun was presently in Hawai`i, but was difficult to contact. Kwi Ha further alluded to having provided the deputy prosecuting attorney with Jae Keun's pager number at work, testifying as follows: [Defense counsel]: You are saying [Jae Keun is] the kind of a person who is kind of worldly? [Kwi Ha]: He takes opportunities. Q. Explain it in Korean. A. Like to here like opportunist. Q. Opportunist? A. He's supposed to be here today, you know, but it's kind of hard to contact him. I told him I have to be here this week. He told me he may going to be here today but he's not here because he don't want to spend his time for this case, I think. Q. Why is that? A. Maybe he's so busy man. Q. He's a busy man? A. I don't know, that's  I try to give information to [the deputy prosecutor] about him, I gave the information already where he moved to but I asked him his new phone number, he didn't tell me. So I gave [the deputy prosecutor] his page number where he work at and where he moved to new place, that's what I gave the information so they can contact him. On March 22, 1993, in the course of opposing the prosecution's motion, defense counsel objected on the record to the receipt into evidence of Kyon and Jae Keun's former testimony, as reflected in the transcript of the preliminary hearing, on the ground that the prosecution had not made an adequate showing that it had undertaken a good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witnesses at trial, thus violating Lee's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The trial court disagreed and ruled that the former testimony of the two witnesses would be received into evidence. On the issue of unavailability, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had made reasonable efforts and attempts to locate both of these witnesses. The trial court relied on the affidavits of Like and McCaig, in addition to Detective Chong's trial testimony, in concluding that the prosecution had made good faith attempts, through vigorous and appropriate steps to procure both witnesses['] presence at trial. (Emphasis in original). Among the additional factors weighing in favor of admissibility, the trial court noted that defense counsel had been provided with partial discovery the day before the preliminary hearing was conducted and was permitted full examinations of both witnesses at the hearing, including extensive cross-examination beyond what is normally afforded at a hearing of this nature. The trial court also took notice of the fact that Lee's trial counsel had represented him at the preliminary hearing. Pursuant to the trial court's ruling, Kyon and Jae Keun's testimony adduced at Lee's preliminary hearing was read into the trial record. Meanwhile, at the commencement of the evidentiary phase of the trial, the trial court granted defense counsel's request that a defense witness, Yong Ki Har (Yong Ki), be permitted to testify out of order ( i.e., before the prosecution began the presentation of its case-in-chief), on the basis that the witness desired to leave O'ahu as soon as possible due to a family illness. Yong Ki testified that he owned the bar next to the Club Chateau and that he had greeted Lee in the parking lot outside the Club Chateau just before the shooting. After Yong Ki testified, but before the prosecution began the presentation of its case-in-chief, the trial court sua sponte distributed pencils and note pads to the jury and administered oral instructions on note-taking. Neither counsel objected. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict as to the charged offense. [7] The trial court thereupon adjudged Lee guilty of attempted murder in the second degree and sentenced to him to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Lee timely appealed.