Opinion ID: 4464659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This appeal arises from Kimberly J. Udo’s (“Udo”) manslaughter conviction in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 707-702(1)(a) (2014),1 for which she was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration with credit for time served, to 1 HRS § 707-702(1)(a) provides as follows: “(1) A person commits the offense of manslaughter if: (a) The person recklessly causes the death of another person . . . .”  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER  run concurrently with any other term served. Udo’s appeal is based on the deputy prosecuting attorney’s (“DPA”) crossexamination of the defense’s only witness, pathologist James Navin, M.D. (“Dr. Navin”) and closing argument references to Dr. Navin’s testimony. Udo alleges the DPA’s cross-examination of Dr. Navin regarding his testimony as a defense expert in two of the most well-publicized and notorious murder trials in Hawaiʻi within the last decade involving defendants Kirk Lankford (“Lankford”) and Matthew Higa (“Higa”), and closing arguments about that testimony, amounted to prosecutorial misconduct affecting her substantial rights for which this court should take plain error notice. In its June 29, 2018 Summary Disposition Order (“SDO”), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) affirmed Udo’s conviction, ruling that the DPA’s cross-examination of Dr. Navin with respect to his testimony in the Lankford and Higa trials was not improper because it was (1) relevant to establishing Dr. Navin’s defense bias; and (2) did not “rise to the level of misconduct in [State v. ]Rogan[, 91 Hawaiʻi 405, 984 P.2d 1231 (1999)].” See State v. Udo, CAAP-16-000793, at 5-6, 7 (App. June 30, 2018) (SDO). The ICA also held that the DPA’s references to these cases in his closing argument were within the bounds of 2  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER  reasonable inference that a prosecutor may draw from the testimony. Udo, SDO at 8-9. In Udo’s case, as argued by Udo on appeal, the DPA improperly referenced Dr. Navin’s testimony in the Lankford and Higa trials, which affected Udo’s substantial right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we vacate the ICA’s judgment on appeal, which had affirmed Udo’s conviction and sentence, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.