Opinion ID: 2582377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fields' Appeal Before the ICA

Text: On appeal before the ICA, Fields argued that the family court plainly erred by admitting Staggs' statement, as related by Officer Ke, that Fields held her down and punched her in the face. [5] Specifically, Fields contended that: (1) the admission of Staggs' hearsay statements to Officer Ke violated the rule against hearsay set forth in Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 802 (2002); (2) the family court's acceptance of Staggs' hearsay statements as substantive evidence violated the confrontation clauses of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the Hawai`i Constitution; (3) the record lacked substantial and admissible evidence to support his conviction; and (4) the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense using evidence other than hearsay. The prosecution answered that: (1) Fields' conviction should be affirmed because Fields did not timely object to the admission of Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements; and (2) if the ICA noticed plain error, the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the statements were admissible hearsay. Fields replied that: (1) the ICA should notice plain error because the error complained of violated his constitutional right of confrontation; (2) neither statement was admissible as a hearsay exception under the HRE; and (3) insofar as neither statement was admissible, the record lacked sufficient evidence to support his conviction. On September 14, 2004, the ICA ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing State v. Haili, 103 Hawai`i 89, 79 P.3d 1263 (2003), and Crawford, cases which were decided on December 3, 2003 and March 8, 2004 respectively. Fields' supplemental brief added that the family court plainly erred by accepting Lhamo's testimony as to Richards' statement, Reggie, get off her, inasmuch as it violated his rights under Crawford. The prosecution answered that: (1) the family court properly admitted Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements; and (2) assuming, arguendo, that the family court erred by admitting Richards' statement, such error was harmless. On May 31, 2005, the ICA filed a published opinion affirming Fields' conviction.
Addressing Fields' confrontation clause claims, the ICA first quoted at length from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), and Haili for the proposition that the prosecution must demonstrate that the hearsay statements of an unavailable declarant bear adequate indicia of reliability in order for those statements to be admissible as substantive evidence without infringing upon the protections afforded criminal defendants by the confrontation clauses of the United States and Hawai`i Constitutions. The ICA subsequently acknowledged that Crawford fundamentally altered the analysis by holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution precludes admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Based upon Crawford, as well as a lengthy excerpt from United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988), the ICA concluded that the family court did not violate Fields' sixth amendment right of confrontation by permitting Staggs' out-of-court statements insofar as Staggs both appeared at trial and testified. The ICA also concluded that, with respect to the confrontation clause incorporated into the Hawai`i Constitution, Haili, not Crawford, was the applicable precedent. Accordingly the ICA determined that, pursuant to Haili, any objection by Fields' counsel to Staggs' out-of-court statements could have been validly denied.
The ICA subsequently noted that the admission of Staggs' and Richards' out-of-court statements did not comply with the statutory provisions of the HRE. The ICA conceded that, had counsel objected to Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements, such objections could not have been validly denied. Nevertheless, the ICA concluded that the family court did not commit error when admitting the hearsay statements because it had no duty to exclude the evidence absent trial counsel's objection. The ICA emphasized that trial counsel's failure to object to Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements presented an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which Fields could assert in a collateral post-conviction proceeding, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40.
Finally, the ICA concluded that, because the admission of Staggs' and Richards' out-of-court statements was not trial error, Fields' assertion that his conviction lacked sufficient evidence was moot. Accordingly, the ICA affirmed the family court's October 11, 2002 judgment without prejudice to Fields asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding, pursuant to HRPP Rule 40.