Opinion ID: 2582377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The right of confrontation as understood at the time of Fields' trial

Text: The confrontation clause of article I, section 14 of the Hawai`i Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused[.] [7] The right of confrontation affords the accused both the opportunity to challenge the credibility and veracity of the prosecution's witnesses and an occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of those witnesses. State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 360, 845 P.2d 547, 555 (1993) (citing State v. Rodrigues, 7 Haw.App. 80, 84, 742 P.2d 986, 989 (1987)). For this reason, the admission of a hearsay statement as substantive evidence of its truth raises special problems whenever the hearsay declarant is unavailable for meaningful cross-examination on the witness stand. See State v. Sua, 92 Hawai`i 61, 70, 987 P.2d 959, 968 (1999) (citing State v. Hoffman, 73 Haw. 41, 47, 828 P.2d 805, 809 (1992) (quoting Blue v. State, 558 P.2d 636, 644 (Alaska 1977))). Nonetheless, we have stopped short of holding that the right of confrontation poses an absolute bar to the admission of all out-of-court statements. See Haili, 103 Hawai`i at 103, 79 P.3d at 1277 (citing State v. McGriff, 76 Hawai`i 148, 156, 871 P.2d 782, 790 (1994) (quoting Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987))). Instead, we have long held that a trial court may, consistent with a criminal defendant's constitutional right of confrontation, permit a hearsay statement uttered by an unavailable declarant as substantive evidence if the statement satisfies the two-part test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Roberts. See Haili, 103 Hawai`i at 104, 79 P.3d at 1278 (citing Sua, 92 Hawai`i at 71, 987 P.2d at 969 (quoting Ortiz, 74 Haw. at 361, 845 P.2d at 555-56)). As regards the first part of the Roberts test, we have remained resolute that[,] under the confrontation clause of the Hawai`i Constitution, a showing of the declarant's unavailability is necessary to promote the integrity of the fact finding process and to ensure fairness to defendants. . . . Upon demonstrating that a witness is unavailable, under the second half of the Roberts test, only statements that bear adequate indicia of reliability may be admitted into evidence. Reliability may be shown in two ways. First, reliability may be inferred without more if it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception[.] Ortiz, 74 Haw. at 361, 845 P.2d at 556 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531). . . . Alternatively, reliability may be demonstrated upon a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Ortiz, 74 Haw. at 361, 845 P.2d at 556 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531). The United States Supreme Court has declined to endorse a mechanical test for determining `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' under the [Confrontation] Clause. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 822, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). Instead, the Court has determined that `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' must be shown from the totality of the circumstances and that the relevant circumstances include only those that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief. Id. at 819, 110 S.Ct. 3139. Sua, 92 Hawai`i at 71-72, 987 P.2d at 969-70 (brackets in original) (some citations and quotation marks omitted). Our endorsement of Roberts as the appropriate litmus for identifying constitutionally inadmissible hearsay was therefore settled at the time of Fields' trial. See id. at 71, 987 P.2d at 969 (citing State v. Moore, 82 Hawai`i 202, 223, 921 P.2d 122, 143 (1996)).