Opinion ID: 4541427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Su’s opening brief

Text: On appeal, Su argued the district court erred by precluding cross-examination of Officer Spiker as to his testimony in the Kuni, Lee, and Thomas proceedings. Su’s argument on appeal appears in two paragraphs at the end of his opening brief: Despite having given prior notice of 3 different instances of past untruthfulness of Officer Spiker, the trial court did not allow cross examination of any of the notice of intents. Absent Spiker’s testimony, the court would not have concluded that SU was guilty. In denying each of the Notice of Intents, it was the court’s position that because Spiker tried to explain away his inconsistencies at the time, they were not false. Yet, that is what cross examination is for. The alleged falsifications were relevant towards determining Spiker’s credibility. The court could have given whatever weight it wanted to the falsifications, but should have allowed cross examination on the issues raised in the notice of intents in order for it to do so under HRE 608(b). See State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 219, 738 P.2d 812, 823 (1987). Su then asked the ICA to “reverse”4 his conviction and remand his case for a new trial, as the cumulative effect of any individual errors warranted a new trial.