Opinion ID: 2629770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admissibility Of Evidence

Text: The admissibility of evidence requires different standards of review depending on the particular rule of evidence at issue. State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 246, 925 P.2d 797, 814 (1996). When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. However, the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a judgment call on the part of the trial court. Id. at 246-47, 925 P.2d at 814-15 (citations omitted). Prior bad act evidence under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 404(b) (1993) is admissible when it is 1) relevant and 2) more probative than prejudicial. State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 183, 907 P.2d 758, 769 (1995) (citations omitted). A trial court's determination that evidence is relevant within the meaning of HRE Rule 401 (1993) is reviewed under the right/wrong standard of review. State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 247, 925 P.2d 797, 815 (1996). However, a trial court's balancing of the probative value of prior bad act evidence against the prejudicial effect of such evidence under HRE Rule 403 (1993) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai`i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994) (citations omitted). State v. Torres, 85 Hawai`i 417, 421, 945 P.2d 849, 853 (App.1997) (footnotes omitted). We review the circuit court's decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion. See State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai`i 94, 107, 19 P.3d 42, 55 (2001); State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai`i 462, 496, 946 P.2d 32, 66 (1997); State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 180, 907 P.2d 758, 766 (1995); State v. Montalbo, 73 Haw. 130, 140-41, 828 P.2d 1274, 1281 (1992). [T]he question whether a person is an expert is a question of law. The person either is or is not an expert, and there is only one right answer. However, ... [t]he question of whether a witness qualifies as an expert is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and such determination will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. .... Liberality and flexibility in evaluating qualifications should be the rule; the proposed expert should not be required to satisfy an overly narrow test of his own qualifications. The trial court has wide discretion in determining the competency of a witness as an expert with respect to a particular subject. State v. Cababag, 9 Haw.App. 496, 504, 850 P.2d 716, 720 (1993) (citing Larsen v. State Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 64 Haw. 302, 304, 640 P.2d 286, 288 (1982), and M. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6642 (Interim Ed.1992)).