Opinion ID: 4541428
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Memorandum in opposition

Text: In her declaration attached to the State’s opposition memorandum, the deputy prosecuting attorney stated: Officer Korenic pointed out that on the face page of his report there were listed six (6) additional police report numbers that were not included in the body of Officer Korenic’s report and were not in the State’s possession. The State was not aware of these reports prior to Officer Korenic pointing them out. The deputy prosecuting attorney also stated: “Subsequent to trial, this Declarant looked for the alleged property reports and, as of this filing [November 23, 2016], has been unable to locate them.” (Emphasis added.) The State contended, however, that the jury was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and Stone did not present any new information 22  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  warranting a new trial. The State maintained that after being cross-examined, Officer Korenic later retracted his position and admitted he may have made mistakes in his incident report. Stone then continued with his theory and, during closing argument, argued Officer Korenic was not credible because of the mistakes he made in his report, and the miscellaneous items belonged to him and that Officer Korenic could have easily looked at them when questioning him.8 According to the State, because Stone proceeded to trial with a specific theory centered on his ownership of the items on the picnic table and was able to fully present that defense to the jury, there was no