Opinion ID: 1405642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission Of Statements Of Co-Conspirators

Text: Before admitting a co-conspirator's statement over objection that it does not qualify under HRE 803(a)(2)(C), the trial court must be satisfied that the statement actually falls within the definition of that rule; [t]here must be evidence that there is a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made `during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.' Bourjaily [v. United States ], 483 U.S. [171,] 175 [107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) ]; accord State v. Yoshino, 45 Haw. 206, 214-15, 364 P.2d 638, 644 (1961). Preliminary questions concerning the ... admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court. HRE 104(a) (1985). Where the preliminary facts necessary for the admissibility of evidence are disputed, the offering party has the burden to prove facts supporting admission by a preponderance of the evidence. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 176 [107 S.Ct. 2775].... On appeal, the trial court's determination of preliminary factual issues concerning the admission of evidence will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See id. at 181 [107 S.Ct. 2775].... 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 in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. Hawai`i's Thousand Friends v. City and County of Honolulu, 75 Haw. 237, 248, 858 P.2d 726, 732 (1993) (citation omitted) (internal brackets omitted). State v. McGriff, 76 Hawai`i 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994).