Opinion ID: 4464659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ICA’s SDO

Text: In an SDO, the ICA affirmed Udo’s conviction and sentence. Udo, SDO at 1. The ICA held that the DPA’s cross-examination of Dr. Navin regarding his testimonies in the Lankford and Higa trials was not improper. Udo, SDO at 5. Under HRE Rule 609.1, the ICA opined that bias, interest, or motive is always relevant and an expert witness’s testimony in other cases may be used to 17 The State also contended the DPA’s alleged “disparaging remarks” about Dr. Navin in his closing argument were not improper, were reasonably drawn inferences from the evidence presented, and, “when viewed in context,” “were hyperbole, colloquialisms, or figures of speech reflecting the DPA’s interpretation of the evidence to emphasize Dr. Navin’s bias . . . .” 18 Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(d) (2016), Udo did not file a reply brief. 34  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER  demonstrate the expert’s defense bias. Udo, SDO at 4 (citations omitted). According to the ICA, Dr. Navin’s testimony was admissible and he had the opportunity to explain or deny the State’s allegations with respect to his prior testimony. Udo, SDO at 5. Although the ICA agreed that the DPA’s characterization of Lankford and Higa was unnecessarily provocative, it opined the inquiry was generally pertinent to Udo’s case and “did not rise to the level of misconduct in Rogan . . . .” Udo, SDO at 5. The ICA thus held that the DPA’s cross-examination of Dr. Navin about his testimony in the Lankford and Higa cases did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. Udo, SDO at 5. As to the Lankford Closing Remark, the ICA stated the reference to the lack of independent corroboration was potentially inflammatory, but held it was not improper because the defense had the opportunity but failed to object or remind the jury that the Lankford testimony was based upon a hypothetical. Udo, SDO at 8. Regarding the Higa Closing Remark, the ICA opined the remarks tended to unnecessarily highlight the odious nature of the facts in the Higa case, but were not inconsistent with Dr. Navin’s testimony and were pertinent to Dr. Navin’s credibility. 35  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER  Udo, SDO at 8. Thus, the ICA held, the remark did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. Udo, SDO at 8.