Opinion ID: 4542930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arrest and Pre-Trial Motions

Text: On the night of October 31, 2016, Jon Togioka was fatally shot by a .22-caliber firearm near Hanapēpē on the 2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER island of Kaua‘i. Kaua‘i Police Department (KPD) officers later arrested Koma Texeira Jr., Trish Flores, Brandon Pagala, Robert “Bobby” Dela Cruz, and Clayton Kona in connection with Togioka’s death. Texeira was subsequently indicted for murder in the second degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5,1 carrying or use of a firearm in commission of a separate felony in violation of HRS § 134-21,2 and two counts of ownership of possession prohibited in violation of HRS § 134- 7(b).3 Kona was also charged in the same indictment with multiple offenses.4 Prior to trial, Kona entered into a plea 1 HRS § 707-701.5(1) (2014) provides as follows: (1) Except as provided in section 707-701, a person commits the offense of murder in the second degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person. 2 HRS § 134-21 (2011) provides in relevant part as follows: (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly carry on the person or have within the person’s immediate control or intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a separate felony, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not[.] 3 HRS § 134-7 (2011) provides in relevant part as follows: (b) No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor. 4 Kona was charged as an accomplice to murder in the second degree in violation of HRS § 707-701.5, carrying or use of firearm in commission of separate felony in violation of HRS § 134-21, two counts of ownership or possession prohibited in violation of HRS § 134-7(b), and place to keep pistol or revolver in violation of HRS § 134-25. 3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER agreement with the State in which he pleaded guilty only to hindering prosecution in the first degree in violation of HRS § 710-1029 and ownership or possession prohibited in violation of HRS § 134-7(b), in exchange for, inter alia, testifying at hearings, trials, re-trials following appeal, or other proceedings connected with Togioka’s death. 1. Motion to Determine Voluntariness of Confession Letter Allegedly Written by Texeira On February 13, 2018, the State filed a motion in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court) to determine the voluntariness of statements that Texeira allegedly wrote in a letter while in jail.5 In a declaration accompanying its motion, the prosecutor stated that Texeira wrote a letter saying he shot Togioka in self-defense and gave that letter to Kona.6 Texeira filed a memorandum in opposition in which he argued, inter alia, that the State had violated Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 16 because the State had not produced the letter to the defense until February 9, 2018, which was one month before trial and 280 days after the State was informed of 5 The Honorable Judge Randal G.B. Valenciano presided over all proceedings in this case. 6 The letter stated that Togioka found a gun belonging to Texeira under the driver’s seat of Texeira’s car and began threatening him with the weapon. A struggle ensued and resulted in Texeira fatally shooting Togioka. 4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER its existence.7 Texeira maintained that on May 5, 2017, Kona gave a statement to KPD in which he stated that Texeira wrote 7 HRPP Rule 16 (2012) provides in pertinent part as follows: (b) Disclosure by the prosecution. (1) Disclosure of Matters Within Prosecution’s Possession. The Prosecutor shall disclose to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney the following material and information within the prosecutor’s possession or control: . . . . (ii) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, or made by a co-defendant if intended to be used in a joint trial, together with the names and last known addresses of persons who witnessed the making of such statements; . . . . (e) Regulation of Discovery. (1) Performance of Obligations. Except for matters which are to be specifically designated in writing by defense counsel under this rule, the prosecution shall disclose all materials subject to disclosure pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this rule to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney within ten (10) calendar days following arraignment and plea of the defendant. The parties may perform their obligations of disclosure in any manner mutually agreeable to the parties or by notifying the attorney for the other party that material and information, described in general terms, may be inspected, obtained, tested, copied or photographed at specified reasonable times and places. (2) Continuing Duty to Disclose. If subsequent to compliance with these rules or orders entered pursuant to these rules, a party discovers additional material or information which would have been subject to disclosure pursuant to this Rule 16, that party shall promptly disclose the additional material or information, and if the additional material or information is discovered during trial, the court shall also be notified. (continued . . .) 5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER two letters confessing to Togioka’s murder while they were both in jail. Subsequently, Kona’s attorney discussed the contents of the letter purportedly written by Texeira in a May 19, 2017 interview with investigating officers. Accordingly, Texeira argued that the State was aware of the letter and its nature on that date. Additionally, Texeira contended that Kona was negotiating a plea deal prior to his interviews and thus was an agent of the State before May 19, 2017. Because the letter was in the possession of a State agent as of May 19, 2017, Texeira argued, the State had an obligation to obtain the letter in a timely manner and disclose its contents to the defense. Alternatively, Texeira maintained that Kona became a state agent as soon as he entered into a plea deal on June 2, 2017, and thus the State had control over the letter at that time. The State’s failure to produce the letter until a month before trial was a violation of HRPP Rule 16, Texeira concluded, and therefore the State should be precluded from introducing the letter into evidence. The State responded that it provided the transcript of Kona’s interview to the defense on May 23, 2017, and provided (. . . continued) HRPP Rule 16 (2012) (some formatting omitted). 6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the second letter allegedly written by Texeira upon receiving it and thus did not violate HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(ii). The State further argued that Kona was not a government agent under its control. On February 27, 2018, the circuit court heard arguments and testimony on the State’s motion. In addition to the arguments made in his memorandum in opposition, Texeira contended that he did not write the letter and that it was actually written by Kona. Texeira maintained that the signature was suspect because it was at the top of the page and had hesitation marks that indicated it was someone trying to copy a signature. Texeira also maintained that there was no way to determine the letter’s authenticity or have fingerprint or handwriting analysis conducted because it was too close to trial to retain an expert, and that he should not be compelled to choose between a fair trial and his right to a speedy trial. The State responded that it provided the letter as soon as Kona’s attorney provided it to the State, and that Kona would testify during the hearing as to the letter’s authenticity. Kona testified at the hearing that, after being arrested in connection with the death of Togioka, he had been placed in the same cell as Texeira in November 2016. During this time, Texeira wrote a letter confessing to the murder and stating that Kona had nothing to do with it. Kona said that he 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER personally saw Texeira write and mail the letter to Texeira’s attorney. According to Kona, this letter was apparently not useful for Kona’s defense, so Texeira wrote a second letter. Kona stated that he also saw Texeira write the second letter and that he did not force him to write the letter. Texeira gave him a copy of the second letter, which Kona gave to his own attorney. When shown a copy of the second letter, Kona said that it was a true and accurate copy of the letter he saw Texeira write. He believed the second letter was written about a month after he had been arrested. Kona further testified that neither the police nor the prosecution asked him to get Texeira to confess to Togioka’s murder and he told the State about the letter prior to signing a plea deal on June 2, 2017. Following the hearing, the circuit court issued an order granting the State’s motion to determine voluntariness. The court found that in December 2016, Texeira voluntarily wrote a second letter, witnessed but not directed by Kona, after discovering that his first letter would not help Kona. The court found Kona was not an agent of the State when Texeira gave him the second letter and was not directed to obtain a confession from Texeira. The court thus permitted the second 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER letter to be admitted into evidence.8 The court did not rule upon Texeira’s contention that the second letter had been untimely disclosed. 2. Texeira’s Motion in Limine to Exclude DNA Evidence Prior to trial, Texeira filed a motion in limine seeking the exclusion of DNA evidence at trial based on the unreliability of the procedures that the State’s DNA expert had used to obtain the DNA results. At the hearing, the State called Emily Jeskie, an employee of Sorenson Forensics (Sorenson), a private DNA testing laboratory that had conducted DNA tests on buccal swabs and cigarette butts recovered at the crime scene.9 Jeskie testified that each Sorenson lab employee is proficiency tested every six months by an outside agency and Sorenson is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors International (ASCLD) accreditation board. Jeskie explained that the accreditation process entails ASCLD auditing the laboratory, ensuring that the tests are performed to standard, and verifying that the employees are competent to perform the tests. The competency testing is conducted by 8 The court redacted two lines in the letter, starting with the sentence “I lied to detectives.” Further, the court permitted the State to reference that the first letter was written, but it excluded the contents of any communications between Texeira and his attorney. 9 Jeskie, who testified via videoconference, stated that she had a bachelor of science in molecular biology from Brigham Young University, had participated in a six-month training program in forensic DNA casework, and had testified in approximately 48 cases as an expert in DNA testing. 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Collaborative Testing Services (CTS). Sorenson has never lost its accreditation, been placed on probation, or had its accreditation withheld or suspended, Jeskie testified. Jeskie further explained that each test is subject to a “control,” which confirms that the testing process worked correctly and did not have contamination. Sorenson has positive controls used in each step of its testing process to indicate what the results should be and if the control “doesn’t type correctly,” then it shows there was a problem in the testing. A second hearing on Texeira’s motion was conducted to allow the State to supplement the record regarding the reliability of the DNA evidence.10 Jeskie testified that every machine used by Sorenson is required to be “validated” under the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) quality assurance standards. Validation entails a study conducted to ensure that the machine is reliable and its results are reproducible. The validation process shows whether each test was done correctly and if there was contamination. Validation is done at each step of the testing to ensure that the control was passed. The FBI quality assurance standards require Sorenson to validate its equipment and train its employees using certain methods. Jeskie explained that all employees are required to complete a standard 10 All of the witnesses at the second hearing testified via videoconference. 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER training program on the equipment and that the training program and validation method Sorenson uses is reviewed as part of the ASCLD accreditation process. Each machine and piece of equipment is subject to controls to ensure they are working properly and are regularly maintained, Jeskie testified. Logs are kept of the maintenance and if a machine is not in working order, it is taken out of commission. The State introduced into evidence a certificate of authenticity and a maintenance record for the machines used to test the DNA evidence to show that they were in proper working order at the time the analyses of the evidence in this case were conducted. The maintenance record was a 48-page log that detailed equipment maintenance on several machines dating as far back as June 24, 2011, and through February 2018. The log recorded daily, weekly, monthly, and annual maintenance, performance checks, error corrections, adjustments, preventative maintenance, calibrations, and time periods when the machines were removed from and placed back into service. The State called several other Sorenson employees that were involved in analyzing the DNA evidence in this case. All of the witnesses testified that the machines utilized to conduct the DNA tests were in working order and that they conducted the testing in compliance with Sorenson’s standard training program and operating procedures. Several Sorenson employees testified 11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER that Sorenson did not itself manufacture any of the machines they used and that they did not know the manufacturer’s identity. The witnesses also testified that the machines were not manufactured by ASCLD, CTS, or the FBI. Texeira maintained that the DNA evidence should not be admitted at trial because the State could not lay a proper foundation establishing that the equipment used to conduct the analyses produced accurate results, unless the user was trained to operate it in the manner recommended by the machine’s manufacturer. Since the State had not adduced any evidence that the machines Sorenson used to analyze the DNA evidence were operated in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, Texeira contended that none of the results were proven to be reliable. In its written order denying the motion, the circuit court found that the Sorenson employees used valid and reliable techniques to obtain DNA profiles, the instruments were in proper working order, and the employees were trained to use, and did use, accepted procedures. The court recognized Jeskie as an expert in DNA testing and profiling and additionally found that the use of DNA evidence to generate a DNA profile and identify a person is reliable science, the DNA test results were relevant to the issue of the identity of the perpetrator, and the results would assist the trier of fact. 12 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER