Opinion ID: 870427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Proceedings Regarding Other Acts Evidence

Text: The State filed a Notice of Intent to Use Specified Evidence, to give[] notice that the State intends to present evidence relating to [Behrendt's] pattern of threats to [SI], and the grooming and ongoing nature/length of their relationship. The State attached police reports that contained allegations of sexual contacts in South Dakota. In response, Behrendt filed a motion in limine, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible under HRE Rules 401, 403 and 404. He also asserted that SI was fabricating the allegations because Behrendt and LI were in the middle of a divorce and custody dispute over their daughter. The circuit court granted Behrendt's motion without prejudice, explaining that the State did not clearly identify all the prior bad act evidence it intended to offer in its case-in-chief or explain how it was relevant, and did not analyze the balancing of probative value versus prejudicial effect. The State filed an amended notice and motion to reconsider. The State included detailed descriptions of the expected testimony of each proposed witness, and argued that the evidence of the prior acts was relevant to show the defendant's motive, purpose and intent; to show opportunity; and to show why [SI] did not, for years, disclose the abuse. Additionally, the State explained why each witnesses' testimony was relevant, and analyzed its admissibility under HRE Rule 403. Behrendt filed an opposition arguing, inter alia, that there are 23 months of context in Hawaii, which is abundantly sufficient to establish context. The circuit court granted in part and denied in part the State's motion for reconsideration. The circuit court rejected the State's argument that prior bad act evidence is always relevant to explain the context of the relationship between the defendant and complaining witness, and concluded that the expected testimony of two of the State's witnesses [7] was not admissible because the probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect and the State's offer of proof was vague and cumulative. The circuit court's order additionally provided, in relevant part: The court grants that portion of State's Motion to Reconsider admission of testimony concerning other acts that allegedly occurred outside of the State of Hawaii as follows. The Court concludes that the issue of delayed reporting is squarely before the jury, as well as possible issues of consent concerning the kidnapping charge. The Court finds that the other bad acts allegedly committed outside of the State of Hawaii as described by [SI], [LI] and [LI's friend, Trista], are relevant to show motive, opportunity and plan. The court having concluded that the testimony is relevant, next balances whether relevant evidence should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by other factors, including danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury, pursuant to Rule 403, [HRE]. Specific factors that the court has considered in the Rule 403 analysis in deciding whether to admit other acts, include the strength of evidence of the prior act, the time elapsed between the prior and [sic] crimes charged, the need for the other acts, efficacy of alternative proof, and whether the other acts are likely to raise overmastering hostility. The Court concludes that the prejudice of admitting the testimony of [SI], [LI] and [LI's friend, Trista], does not outweigh the relevance, and that a cautionary instruction ameliorates any prejudice. . . . . III. OTHER BAD ACTS OCCURRING IN HAWAII. The court finds that most of the witnesses who will testify to the relationship between the defendant and the complaining witness will present testimony that could be considered other bad acts. Many are family and friends who may have been in close contact with the defendant and minor, several living in the same household. Some of the testimony describes acts, such as holding hands and kissing, that could be considered either innocent or a bad act. The court finds and concludes that the testimony of the following witnesses concerning other acts or bad acts that happened in Hawaii is relevant to motive, opportunity, intent and plan[.] The court further finds that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by other factors, including danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury. The court finds that a cautionary instruction ameliorates any prejudice. ... (Emphases added).