Opinion ID: 2600745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential Exculpatory Evidence

Text: On December 10, 1998, in the afternoon of the first day of the State's presentation of evidence, the deputy prosecutor called defense counsel over to listen to possible exculpatory evidence that was being revealed by Honolulu Police Department Officer Perez (Officer Perez), who had testified earlier that morning regarding his investigation of the case. In a hearing out of the jury's presence, defense counsel then informed the court of what Officer Perez had just related for the first time: [T]he night before the shooting . . . Officer Perez was involved in a traffic stop which involved Gary Akopian and Stella Jensen. If I recall correctly Officer Perez was going to issue a ticket. It was late at night. [Officer Perez] asked Mr. Akopian for his license. Officer Perez accompanied Mr. Akopian to the trunk to the back of the car to retrieve the license from the trunk. According to Officer Perez, Akopian opened the trunk partially at which point using his flashlight Officer Perez could see that there was some items that were stacked under a tarp. [Officer Perez] couldn't see what was under the tarp, but he noticed that Gary Akopian suddenly closed the trunk and said that he believed his license was not in the trunk. Perez issued the traffic ticket and left. So Officer Perez said that he ticketed Mr. Akopian anyway and sent Mr. Akopian and Ms. Jensen on their way. The following evening . . . [w]hen Officer Perez [responded to the scene of the shooting], he encountered a group of people from the area and they told him that they did not think Mr. Akopian had any class because while Mr. Akopian had a cellular phone, instead of calling 911 for the victim [Stella Jensen], Mr. Akopian called one of his friends. And they also told Officer Perez that subsequently a car drove up, and these people claimed they saw Mr. Akopian transferring guns from his car to this other car. Subsequently, Mara moved for a mistrial, or alternatively, a continuance, because he wanted to make an attempt to find the newly disclosed witnesses or at least research the issue of a possible motion to dismiss based on the loss of exculpatory evidence. In opposing Mara's motion for mistrial, the prosecutor clarified certain points: [I] believe Officer Perez said he saw a gray tarp the night of the speeding ticket. He didn't see anything underneath it. He just saw a gray tarp before Mr. Akopian closed the trunk. And then also he indicated that the car, according to these people he talked to, there were guns that were transferred from Mr. Akopian's car to the trunk of this other car which then left the scene before the police came. And I asked if there's a description of the guns, and he said the people only said a rifle. Also, Officer Perez indicated that he asked several of these individuals to make out an HPD 252 statement form and that when he did that . . . [he] indicated that none of these witnesses wanted to come forward. The prosecutor did not object to a continuance if defense counsel wished to explore the issue of trying to find [the witnesses] with Officer Perez's help. The trial court took the matter under advisement and ordered the trial to proceed. The court advised defense counsel to further investigate the information Officer Perez had revealed and ordered the prosecutor to cooperate fully with defense counsel's investigation. On December 17, 1998, at a hearing outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel updated the court regarding the progress made in ascertaining witnesses with respect to Officer Perez's information. Defense counsel represented that, with the assistance of Officer Perez, his investigator went to twelve homes in the area where the people appeared from on the night of the shooting, but was unable to locate any witnesses. At the same hearing, Officer Perez testified that, following his testimony on the morning of December 10, 1998 and while he was between the courtroom's double doors, he informed the prosecutor about certain statements which were made to him by unknown people at the scene after the accident occurred. He testified that, initially, he had not lent any credibility to the statement of a woman who had told him that Akopian removed weapons from his car because he had investigated complaints in the immediate vicinity of the shooting on previous occasions and that, even though there would always be mention of a weapon[,] individuals in the area would not cooperate with further investigations: I kind of figured: Well, this is one of those where somebody just had something to say, you know, just wanted to get in the act. However, Officer Perez changed his mind and decided to tell the deputy prosecutor about the statements because he really started thinking about it and decided that it was better to mention it. Officer Perez testified that Akopian had aroused his suspicion the night before the shooting when he had quickly closed the trunk of his car before the officer could see in it. [8] In addition, Officer Perez testified that, after the shooting, a woman told him that Akopian had been yelling for someone to call 911 even though he was talking to someone else on his cell phone. A few minutes later, another car pulled up next to Akopian's vehicle, and they transferred guns from Akopian's trunk to the other car. However, when asked to make a statement, she refused, stating, Oh, fuck that[,] and walked away. When Officer Perez asked other people if they had seen what the woman had seen, they responded, Nah. We no like be involved. These people would not provide him with their names. The trial court ruled that Mara had not shown that the witness sought was available and willing to testify or that the denial of a continuance would materially prejudice Mara, rejecting Mara's contention that the witnesses' statements regarding guns in the trunk were critical to his theory that he acted in self-defense because it would have corroborated his statement to the police that he believed Akopian was reaching for a gun when the shooting occurred. The court subsequently denied Mara's mistrial motion, dismissing his argument that Officer Perez's late disclosure of the evidence had seriously prejudiced him. The court, however, indicated that it would permit Officer Perez to testify regarding what the witness stated to him, not for the truth of the statement but to show that this information was given to Officer Perez. When trial resumed later that day, Honolulu Police Department Detective Harold Fitchett testified that, despite attempts to interview witnesses during the investigation of the incident, nobody would come forward and sit down with the officers to write out a statement in a formal form. Fitchett acknowledged that efforts were made by officers to follow up on information received from people at the scene that Akopian was seen running from his car carrying something in his hands and handing it off to someone in the nearby area. However, these efforts were unsuccessful. Officer Perez's testimony before the jury regarding the witnesses' statements, particularly the details about Akopian talking on the cell phone and transferring weapons from his trunk, was substantially the same as his testimony at the hearing out of the jury's presence. At the conclusion of Officer Perez's testimony, the court instructed the jury that Officer Perez's recitation of the statements made by persons not present in court should not be considered for the truth of the matter but to show that they were made to Officer Perez. Thereafter, Mara renewed his alternative motions for a continuance or mistrial, both of which the court denied.