Opinion ID: 1163316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ... Mr. Pulse is locked up in custody...

Text: At the time of Pulse's arrest, Sandy had signed a written statement that Pulse had brought a gun onto Cartagena's boat. At trial, Sandy recanted the statement, alleging that it was untrue and that she had been tricked into making it. The prosecution sought to impeach her trial testimony by questioning her as to why she had not informed the authorities of the falsity of her statement sooner. In doing so, the prosecutor asked the following question: So you didn't think it was important because here Mr. Pulse is locked up in custody  important enough to come forward early to tell  ask for an interpreter to tell somebody all of this was a lie? Pulse now alleges that the prosecutor committed misconduct when he referred to the fact that Pulse had been in custody. The record reveals, however, that Sandy had already testified to the fact that Pulse was in custody. [11] In addition, because of the context in which the prosecutor's reference to Pulse's custody arose there was virtually no possibility that the jury could have inferred anything about Pulse's guilt on the basis of the mere fact that he was in custody. Cf. State v. Morishige, 65 Haw. 354, 362, 652 P.2d 1119, 1126 (1982) (holding that jury's viewing of defendant in shackles does not, ipso facto, raise a presumption of prejudice); see also State v. Jackson, 8 Haw.App. 624, 633-36, 817 P.2d 130, 136-37 (1991) (holding that jury's viewing of a confidential informant leaving the witness stand, accompanied by identifiable security officers, was not inherently prejudicial to the defendant). Therefore, we hold that the prosecutor's reference to Pulse's being in custody did not constitute misconduct.