Opinion ID: 1163293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Violation Of Right To Confrontation

Text: Whether the prosecution has made an adequate showing of the unavailability of a witness  for the purpose of satisfying the confrontation clauses of the United States and Hawai`i Constitutions  is, at the first level of analysis, a question of fact for the trial court to decide, involving a determination of the nature of the prosecution's good faith efforts to secure the witness's presence at trial. Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai`i 358, 368, 917 P.2d 370, 380 (1996); Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai`i 226, 231, 900 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1995); State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai`i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Ganal, 81 Hawai`i at 368, 917 P.2d at 380; Tachibana, 79 Hawai`i at 231, 900 P.2d at 1298; Furutani, 76 Hawai`i at 179, 873 P.2d at 58. At the second level of analysis, we ask whether the facts as found amount to a legally adequate good faith effort to confront the defendant with his accusers. This is a question of federal and/or state constitutional law, and we answer it by exercising our own `independent constitutional judgment [based] on the facts of the case.' Crosby v. State Dep't of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai`i 332, 341, 876 P.2d 1300, 1309 (1994) (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 150 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1692 n. 10, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 731, 130 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). In other words, application of constitutional principles to the facts as found ... requires us to examine the entire record and make an independent determination... based upon that review and the totality of the circumstances[.] State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai`i 17, 32, 881 P.2d 504, 519 (1994) (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). Only in rare instances will reviewing courts hold constitutional error to be harmless. Under Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ], an error of constitutional proportions can be disregarded as harmless [only] if the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error `did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' State v. Samuel, 74 Haw. 141, 148, 838 P.2d 1374, 1378 (1992) (citation omitted).