Opinion ID: 2614565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: There Was Substantial Evidence Supporting The Circuit Court's Relevant FOFs.

Text: Kotis urges that the circuit court lacked substantial evidence to support its FOFs that Kotis was dangerous to himself and to others, that the treatment plan was medically appropriate and essential, and that alternative treatments would be inadequate. 1. There was substantial evidence that Kotis was dangerous to himself. Kotis rightly points out that Dr. Shibata's opinion testimony on the subject of Kotis's dangerousness was highly equivocal. Dr. Shibata testified that Kotis  may pose a possible danger to others, but that [t]here's no empirical way of measuring or predicting future dangerousness. Distressingly, Dr. Shibata also appeared to indicate that he had based his opinion of Kotis's dangerousness to others, at least in part, on the fact, per se, that Kotis had been charged with kidnapping. Moreover, Dr. Shibata testified that he did not believe Kotis to be imminently suicidal, but opined that there was a possibility that, due to a mood swing, he might become suicidal in the future. Kotis is correct that, if the foregoing opinion testimony had represented the full extent of the evidence before the circuit court, it might well have been insufficient to support the FOFs. In addition to his opinion testimony, however, Dr. Shibata testified to facts relevant to the question of Kotis's dangerousness to himself. Dr. Shibata testified that Kotis had made statements about thoughts of dying, thoughts of committing suicide, and that he had made several statements about possibly hanging himself, getting the police to shoot him. [27] It is not perfectly clear from the context of Dr. Shibata's testimony whether he learned of Kotis's statements from his review of the medical records or whether Kotis made the statements directly to Dr. Shibata during one of his several meetings with Kotis. Nevertheless, the circuit court could rationally have inferred that the gist of Dr. Shibata's testimony was that Kotis had made the statements directly to him. Accordingly, Kotis's statements were admissible for the truth of the matters asserted, pursuant to HRE Rule 803(a)(1) (1993). [28] These statements alone constitute substantial evidence to support the circuit court's FOF that Kotis was dangerous to himself. Moreover, each of the medical examiners who submitted reports in connection with the fitness proceedings (which must be considered competent evidence although erroneously admitted, see supra section III.E) opined that Kotis was dangerous both to himself and to others. Accordingly, the circuit court's FOFs regarding Kotis's dangerousness were not clearly erroneous.