Opinion ID: 4534895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background & trial

Text: On December 30, 2013, John Leslie Gallagher was charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) with criminal property damage in the second degree in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-821(1)(b) 2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (Supp. 2012)1 based on an incident that occurred on September 15, 2013. Gallagher pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prior to trial, Gallagher moved for “an order excluding from use at trial testimonial or documentary evidence relating to any other ‘acts’, bad or otherwise” involving him as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 404 and 403. Specifically, Gallagher sought to preclude “any testimonial or documentary evidence regarding alleged incidents” on four specified dates between May and September 2013 involving the two complaining witnesses or other persons. Thereafter, the State filed two notices of intent pursuant to HRE Rules 404(b) and 608(b) stating it would rely on evidence of four prior incidents of “Harassment,” one incident of “Harassment By Stalking,” and one incident of “Harassment By Stalking, Simple Trespass, Criminal Tampering and Disorderly Conduct” that occurred between March 24 and September 19, 2013.2 1 HRS § 708-821(1)(b) provides in relevant part as follows: “A person commits the offense of criminal property damage in the second degree if by means other than fire: . . . . The person intentionally or knowingly damages the property of another, without the other’s consent, in an amount exceeding $1,500[.]” 2 The notices collectively indicated that the State intended to rely upon six incidents, including one that occurred several days after the events giving rise to the case. During the hearing on the motions in limine, however, the State informed the court that it did not intend to introduce any evidence of the last incident at trial. Ultimately, the State elicited testimony regarding four of the prior incidents. 3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The State contended evidence of the prior incidents was relevant and admissible to demonstrate Gallagher’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, and/or absence of mistake or accident[,] as well as attacking his credibility as probative of untruthfulness.” At a hearing on the pretrial motions,3 the State contended the sole issue at trial was going to be Gallagher’s state of mind and his intent to cause the amount of damage to the complainants’ vehicle that resulted from his actions on the night in question. The State asserted that evidence of the five prior incidents would show the conduct underlying the charged offense was not an isolated event, accident, or mistake and that the prior incidents culminated in the incident that resulted in the criminal property damage charge. The court asked the State to elaborate, and the State responded as follows: [B]asically what happened over the course of about six or seven months, this individual, from out of the blue, just started appearing at our complaining witness’s house, essentially taking them to the point where they had to get a protective order against him, installed a video surveillance system on their house, basically because he had come around so many times threatening them . . . . According to the State, it was important for the jury to hear about the prior incidents to understand Gallagher’s state of mind when he damaged the complainants’ vehicle. 3 The Honorable Joseph E. Cardoza presided over the circuit court proceedings in this case. 4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER In addition to his written motions in limine, Gallagher orally objected to the introduction of the prior incidents stated in the State’s notices of intent, arguing that they were not relevant and were more prejudicial than probative because there would be no question as to his identity or whether his actions were the result of an accident or mistake. Evidence of the prior incidents, Gallagher maintained, did not go to the elements that the State needed to prove or to any defenses, and it did not fall within an exception to the rule against character evidence. Additionally, Gallagher argued that the prior incidents were dissimilar to the charged offense because they did not involve property damage. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court denied the defense’s motion to exclude the incidents, holding without any elaboration that the five prior incidents fell within the exceptions to HRE Rule 404(b). The court did not exclude any evidence regarding the prior incidents. The only matters excluded were opinions expressed by a complaining witness to the police regarding Gallagher’s mental instability and statements that Gallagher had made that raised concerns about his mental health, both of which the State had no objection to excluding. A jury trial commenced in August 2014. In its opening statement, the State informed the jury that the evidence would show that on September 15, 2013, Gallagher charged up the 5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER complainants’ driveway and kicked their vehicle multiple times on the passenger’s side and then on the driver’s side. The State related that the jury would hear and see that Gallagher’s kicks left numerous dents on the complainants’ vehicle. The State indicated that the jury was “probably going to hear the defense agree with pretty much 99 percent of what I just told you.” The State also told the jury that the night of the incident was not the first time the complainants had seen Gallagher. The defense’s objection to this statement was overruled. The State proceeded to inform the jury that Gallagher had become an issue in the complainants’ lives over the course of the six months preceding the incident, requiring the complainants to call the police numerous times, file numerous police reports, tint the windows of their home, and install an alarm system and a video surveillance system because of their fear. The prosecutor then told the jury that the Normans had actually sought a protective order against Gallagher. Defense counsel’s objection to this statement was sustained, and the statement was stricken. In the defense’s opening statement, counsel stated that it was not disputed that Gallagher went to the complainants’ residence on September 15, 2013, and kicked their vehicle. Defense counsel told the jury that the only issue in 6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER dispute was the amount of damage that Gallagher intended to cause. The defense submitted that the evidence would show that Gallagher did not intend to cause more than $1,500 in damage and that he was not aware and did not believe that he would damage the vehicle to that extent. Following opening statements, the State presented the testimony of one of the complainants, Jessica Norman (Ms. Norman). Ms. Norman testified that Gallagher first came into her life on March 24, 2013, which prompted Gallagher to renew his objection on HRE Rules 404(b) and 403 grounds. A bench conference ensued, and Gallagher argued that even if the prior incidents were relevant, the court was required to determine whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Gallagher maintained that identification was not at issue in the case, the prior incidents did not relate to Gallagher’s state of mind as to knowing the amount of the damages, the prior incidents involved different facts, their introduction would confuse the issues and mislead the jury, and there was other evidence regarding the damages. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I would just object. I know this issue was raised at motions in limine, but I would just make an objection under 404(b). Your Honor, even assuming that these prior incidents are relevant, I believe the Court still has to determine whether there’s unfair prejudice to my client and . . . whether the need for it substantially outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice. 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER I would submit, you know, in this case, identification is not an issue. The prior incidents do not go to state of mind as far as knowing the amount of the damage. The facts are different, and . . . it would confuse the issue, mislead the jury. And . . . there’s other evidence that can go towards the damages[.] Gallagher indicated that he would like to register a running objection under HRE Rule 404(b) regarding any prior incidents. In response, the State contended that the “escalating series of events” were “highly probative” of Gallagher’s mindset and his intent on the night of the incident. The court overruled Gallagher’s objections. The court reasoned that without evidence of the prior incidents, there was no context or explanation for the charged conduct because the parties were not otherwise acquaintances. Further, stated the court, the prior incidents were highly probative of Gallagher’s intent to cause the kind of damage that occurred, and in any event the State had the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of whether some of them were conceded in the defense’s opening statement. The court concluded that based on these reasons and the “entire 401, 403, 404 analysis” it would allow in the evidence of the prior incidents. The court did not indicate that it would not allow defense counsel’s request for a continuing objection. Following the bench conference, the circuit court issued a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding the 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER evidence of the prior incidents. The court instructed the jury that the evidence could be considered only on the issue of the defendant’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, or plan to commit the charged offense, and as to the identity of the person who may have committed the charged offense. The court further instructed the jury not to consider the evidence for any other purpose or to conclude that the defendant was a person of bad character and therefore must have committed the charged offense. Ms. Norman then testified in detail about four of her prior interactions with Gallagher. Ms. Norman described her first encounter with Gallagher on March 24, 2013, when she saw him walking toward her home. When she opened the front door and asked if he needed help with anything, Gallagher started screaming at her, saying: “You’re not going to have your job by next week. You hear me. You’re not going to have your job.” Ms. Norman testified that she immediately closed the door, explaining that she was “incredibly confused and scared,” and that she thereafter filed a police report. Ms. Norman then described an incident that occurred on May 9, 2013, testifying that she looked out her window after she heard yelling from the street. She witnessed Gallagher in a confrontation with one of her neighbors, and when Gallagher saw her through the window, he started screaming obscenities at her 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER and ran toward the house. Ms. Norman explained that she called the police, but Gallagher was gone by the time they showed up. Ms. Norman testified that she next saw Gallagher when she was again looking out her window on August 16, 2013. She stated that Gallagher was parked in his car in front of her driveway, and she witnessed him shake his fist at the house and give it “the finger” before speeding off. Ms. Norman lastly recounted an incident that took place on September 4, 2013. She again saw Gallagher parked blocking her driveway, and this time she witnessed him make erratic movements as if he were going to ram his vehicle into the cars parked on the property. Gallagher again sped off, Ms. Norman testified, and he was gone by the time she called the police. Ms. Norman stated that, in total, she filed six police reports against Gallagher from March 24 through September 15, 2013. These prior incidents terrified her because Gallagher appeared to show up more frequently and become more aggressive as time progressed. Ms. Norman testified that she did not know what Gallagher was capable of, and that she and her husband were scared for their lives. As a result of Gallagher’s conduct, they tinted the windows on the ground floor of their home and installed an alarm system and a surveillance system with seven different cameras around the house. 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER As to the incident underlying the charge, Ms. Norman testified that on September 15, 2013, she went out on her lānai after she heard a car nearby and her dog began to bark. She saw Gallagher running at full speed toward the house screaming obscenities at her. He then started “wailing on the car,” kicking and punching it approximately fourteen to sixteen times. Ms. Norman described the dents in the car as “massive,” about four or five inches deep, and stated that Gallagher’s kicks and punches were so loud that she thought he was using a baseball bat. Gallagher had also knocked the top of the back of the truck bed using his fist. Ms. Norman explained that, after he finished striking the car, Gallagher walked away, “flipped the house the bird,” and then got in his car and left. During Ms. Norman’s testimony, two CDs containing video surveillance footage of the incident were admitted into evidence and published to the jury; Ms. Norman provided a narration of the events shown in the footage while the video was played for the jury. The State then called as a witness Garron Norman (Mr. Norman), Ms. Norman’s husband, who testified that he came to know Gallagher “[f]rom a series of escalating events that were taking place at [their] residence.” Because of these events that were happening throughout the summer and early spring, he and Ms. Norman were in a heightened state of alert on September 11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 15, 2013. Mr. Norman recounted the events of that evening, which coincided with the testimony that had been given by Ms. Norman. Mr. Norman testified that after the incident, he saw multiple dents all along the front quarter panels to the rear of the vehicle around the tailgate and up the driver’s side of the vehicle. A series of photographs were admitted into evidence depicting the damage to the pickup, and Mr. Norman pointed out and described the dents, relating that there were probably about seven to eight “significant dents,” approximately two to four inches deep, that were caused by Gallagher. Gordon Yoshizawa, the owner of an auto repair shop, testified that he personally inspected the Normans’ vehicle the day after the incident and estimated the cost of repairs to be $4,583.04. Additionally, Matthew Little, an automotive damage specialist for the Normans’ insurance company, testified that based upon his inspection the estimated repair cost for the damage done to the vehicle was $3,036.26.4 After the State rested, Gallagher testified that in the early evening of September 15, 2013, he was at the house of a friend who lived next door to the Normans. He walked to the 4 Mr. Norman stated that the Normans received an insurance payment of $2,536.26 for the damage, which reflected a $500 deductible. 12 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Normans’ house, lost his composure, kicked the passenger side of the Normans’ truck three times, and then kicked between the rear wheel and the door on the other side of the truck a few times. According to Gallagher, he was 5 feet 9 inches tall, weighed 160 pounds, and wore a pair of cross-trainers on the night of the incident. He stated he used the inside of his foot and described the kicks as “more like a soccer kick.” He said that the incident lasted for a total of ten seconds and that he only “put a couple scuff marks on the truck.” Gallagher testified that he had a degree in automotive technology, the damage he caused amounted to only about $300 or $400, and a “detail job to buff it out” or a “wax job” would have taken care of the damage to the vehicle. Gallagher further stated that he did not intend to do extensive damage and disputed that his kicks left dents in the truck that amounted to $1,500 worth of damage. During the reading of the jury instructions, the circuit court provided a general instruction on the use of evidence admitted for a limited purpose. The court then instructed the jury that the evidence of Gallagher’s prior crimes or bad acts was to be considered only on the issue of his motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, or identity and not to 13 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER conclude that he was a person of bad character and therefore must have committed the charged offense.5 In its closing argument, the State indicated that the case boiled down to whether Gallagher intentionally or knowingly caused $1,500 worth of damage to the Normans’ vehicle. The State argued that the evidence against Gallagher, including the prior acts Gallagher committed, was “very overwhelming.” The evidence of the prior incidents, the State explained, was presented to show Gallagher’s intent and the Normans’ perception of Gallagher’s state of mind. The State asserted that what occurred was not an isolated incident but instead was an escalating series of events that took place over six months. The jury was reminded by the State that it had heard from the Normans about the number of times Gallagher came into their lives, and from the Normans’ perspective he was becoming more dangerous each time he showed up. The State highlighted the several countermeasures the Normans had taken such as installing a surveillance system and an alarm system and tinting the windows of their house. This was not an isolated incident, the State reiterated, and Gallagher was demonstrating increasing levels of anger and hostility. Gallagher intended to do as much 5 The court also instructed the jury on the elements of the included offenses of criminal property damage in the third and fourth degrees. 14 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER damage as he physically could on the night in question, the State argued, and his actions were “premeditated,” “cold,” and “calculated.” Defense counsel argued in closing argument that the only disputed issue in the case concerned Gallagher’s intent regarding the amount of the damage he caused to the Normans’ truck. While Gallagher admitted to kicking the Normans’ vehicle, counsel maintained, it was not enough that Gallagher kicked the vehicle. The State also had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gallagher acted with the intent or knowledge that he would cause over $1,500 in damage. Counsel argued that the truck already had scratches and dents and that Gallagher could not have intended to cause over $1,500 worth of damage, adding that the damage he did cause was only cosmetic in nature. The jury convicted Gallagher as charged. Gallagher was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment consecutive to a term he was currently serving. Gallagher appealed from the circuit court’s October 31, 2014 judgment of conviction and sentence. 15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER