Opinion ID: 2653520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Retrial on the Hasker Murder Charge

Text: The State filed a Notice of Intent to Use Evidence, in which it sought to admit evidence of the Leach and California incidents, as well as evidence of the additional Hasker convictions, i.e., robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and unauthorized control of propelled vehicle. Maryann opposed the notice of intent to use the prior evidence. Maryann argued, “Besides the problems of allowing William to again lie regarding the Arauza matter,[3] evidence of that incident is prohibited by [HRE] Rule 404(b)[.] Nothing in 3 As will be discussed further infra, Maryann appears to be referring to William’s 1991 testimony before the California Parole Board, in which he testified that he shot both Hasker and Arauza and that Maryann did “[a]bsolutely nothing[,]” which contradicted his testimony at Maryann’s initial trial that she told him that she shot Arauza. -9-  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the Arauza incident makes William’s assertion that Maryann shot Hasker any more or less probable.” At a subsequent hearing, the circuit court stated that it would allow in the Leach incident, and that it would keep out the Arauza incident “unless the door is open[ed]”: What worries me is if William [] gets on the stand and says he is pure as the driven snow and he has constantly told the truth, we’re going to get into whether or not he lied in this Court, in the Circuit Court, lo these -- whatever many years ago it was. . . . . And whether he -- or whether he lied up in California and pled to being the shooter. And we’ll get to that. But if the door is opened, we’re going to have to go down that road[.] The circuit court subsequently entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order which provided in relevant part: