Opinion ID: 2621362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In July 2001, Rodrigues was working as a field welder for Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC & S) on Maui. On July 31, 2001, an HC & S work crew informed Gerard Cambra, the head of HC & S's welding shop, that a portable arc welder with a purple cover mounted on a trailer was missing from where it had been secured the previous evening. It was the only purple welder HC & S owned and the trailer was distinctive in that it was constructed of more expensive stainless steel and was fitted with aluminum mag wheels. The incident was reported to HC & S security, and the welder was later reported as stolen. In October 2001, Rodrigues called Benjamin Santiago, an acquaintance at HC & S who worked as the electrical supervisor in the power generation station, to arrange to bring to Santiago's shop what he asserted was his personal welding machine in the hopes it could be repaired. Rodrigues dropped the machine off on October 23, 2001, whereupon HC & S employees noticed that it resembled the missing welder and alerted Robert Motooka, HC & S's administrator of safety and risk management. Motooka cross-referenced the unit and engine serial numbers on the machine with those in company invoices for the stolen machine and confirmed that they matched. [2] The Maui Police Department (MPD) was contacted on October 25, 2001. Officer John Sang photographed the welder extensively and then proceeded to Rodrigues's home to investigate further, where he located the purple cover of the welder in Rodrigues's garage. On October 26, 2001, Rodrigues attended a meeting at HC & S with Motooka to explore how Rodrigues came into possession of the welder. Rodrigues gave Motooka a statement similar in detail to the one he later supplied to the police, see infra this section, except that he told Motooka that he had given the trailer that accompanied the welder to an acquaintance named Rey. [3] Ian Miyagawa, an acquaintance of Rodrigues's, later testified at trial that, during the summer of 2001, Rodrigues had brought a brownish arc welder, unmounted, on a stainless steel trailer to Miyagawa's home to assist in modifying a boat trailer. Miyagawa identified the welder as the one later determined to be owned by HC & S, see supra note 2. Miyagawa testified that Rodrigues kept the trailer at Miyagawa's home for at least two weeks; Rodrigues initially represented that the trailer was on loan, but eventually stated that he wanted to sell it for $1500.00. Rodrigues ultimately sold the trailer for $150.00 to Rey, who lived on Miyagawa's street. On December 19, 2001, MPD Detective Donald Kanemitsu spoke with Rodrigues in a police interrogation room. Detective Kanemitsu later testified that Rodrigues was cooperative and freely providing information. He advised Rodrigues regarding his rights to remain silent and to an attorney, as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Rodrigues reviewed and signed a standard warning and waiver form. [4] Detective Kanemitsu testified that Rodrigues stated during the interview that he and a friend, Shawn Kanhai, had gone to a local store to buy lunch and that Rodrigues had observed a flyer advertising a used welder for sale for $1500.00. [5] Rodrigues told Detective Kanemitsu that he had called the number on the flyer on his cell phone and had spoken with a man identifying himself as Tony. Rodrigues said that he and Tony had arranged to meet and that Rodrigues had bargained the price down to $1200.00 due to the condition of the trailer upon which the welder was mounted. Rodrigues then told Detective Kanemitsu that he had taken the trailer  which he maintained was not composed of stainless steel  back to his shop at HC & S, where he removed the welder from the trailer, salvaged many of the trailer's parts, including the spindles, [6] and discarded the rest in a dumpster. Detective Kanemitsu testified that Rodrigues could not provide Tony's telephone number, [7] but that Rodrigues described the man as a Filipino male, five foot seven inches tall, weighing 170 pounds, with shoulder length hair, and driving an older Toyota pickup truck. [8] Rodrigues told the detective that he retained the spindles from the trailer because an acquaintance, Rey, had expressed an interest in buying them. Further investigation led Detective Kanemitsu to Rey, who was in possession of the stainless steel trailer later identified by Cambra as the stolen HC & S trailer, see infra this section. After Rodrigues completed his statement to Detective Kanemitsu  during which time the detective took notes  Detective Kanemitsu asked Rodrigues whether he would repeat the statement for him on tape. Rodrigues declined. On January 29, 2002, Detective Kanemitsu again met with Rodrigues, who elected at that time to retain a lawyer and to make no further statements to police. On February 1, 2002, Cambra was invited to the Wailuku Police Station, where, on behalf of HC & S, he identified and reclaimed the stainless steel trailer taken from Rey's house. On December 23, 2002, a grand jury indicted Rodrigues on the charge of theft in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-831(1)(b), see supra note 1. Prior to trial, the circuit court conducted a voluntariness hearing with regard to Rodrigues's statements made to Motooka and Detective Kanemitsu. Detective Kanemitsu testified that he had used a standard warning and waiver form and had confirmed that Rodrigues understood English. Rodrigues had read along while Detective Kanemitsu read the form aloud. Detective Kanemitsu asked Rodrigues to initial after each line to indicate that he understood, and Rodrigues had done so. Rodrigues then affixed his signature to the document. Detective Kanematsu reviewed the waiver of rights section of the document, and Rodrigues initialed each line and signed and dated it. Rodrigues did not request an attorney, and it was uncontested that Detective Kanemitsu did not threaten or coerce him. On cross-examination, Rodrigues's counsel questioned Detective Kanemitsu extensively concerning the procedures employed in the recordation of Rodrigues's statement, including the fact that Rodrigues had declined to allow a tape recording: Q: . . . Detective, you indicated this was not recorded? A: No, it was not. Q: And you indicated that it was kind of like . . . by asking if it was okay if I record it, is that a guess? A: As standard procedure for myself, when I speak to any suspects, or defendants, or responsibles, I discuss with them first. And then ask them, I'm going to tape-record this thing. Do you have any objections  whatever? He did not wish to be recorded at the time. Q: That's your recollection? A: Yes, it is. Q: Okay. You indicated that you made notes. Where are those notes today? A: Honestly, I don't have them, they're from 2001. Q: Your report that you filed in this case was February, I believe, of 2002? A: If that's what it indicates. Q: . . . That's the date of the report where you signed, and at the end where there was a long list of people in the report that you had interviewed. On the date of the report, is that when you transposed the notes  A: To my official document, no. When I conduct my investigations, as I'm going along talking to witnesses, I write my notes. Actually, I type out my report as I'm going along during my investigation. Q: You say you type your report as you're going along? A: Yeah. . . . . Q: And there is a particular file for this case investigation, is that correct? A: I believe so, yes. Q: So you usually do it on the day that you  A: Yes, I do. Q:  do the interview? You ever do it sometime other than the day of the interview? . . . . A: Not usually with interviews. I'm not sure I ever have. I would be lying right now if I say I never have, but I'm saying I don't usually do it. Q: So it could be a possibility that it could have been the following day? A: Yeah, I guess so. Q: Okay. And what is your standard procedure for keeping notes? A: Can you clarify that? Q: Okay. You take notes, you type a report from these notes? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Is there any reason why you do not retain the notes? A: I usually do, but this is a 2001 case. I transfer sections and I don't recall if I have them. Q: But could it be on file? A: Not in the file. Q: You say you don't recall if you have them? . . . . A: Notes are taken on note pads during investigations or interviews. . . . I'm saying that I don't know if I have them with me still. Q: Where would you keep the note pad? A: Any document, police related, is usually discarded properly if they're not needed anymore. So that's probably what happened to it. Q: Okay. And you assume that they're not needed if you transpose the notes in the report? A: My official report was conducted. Q: And have you ever had an occasion where your report does not accurately reflect what's in the notes? A: No, I have not. Q: Is that the  have the notes ever been made available with the report to defense lawyers? A: I never had the need to. Q: When you say you never had the need to, have you ever been requested for your notes in the past? A: No, I have not. Q: Never? A: No. Q: How many times have you testified in a criminal case? A: I've been on the job for over fourteen years, I can't tell you how often I've been in court. Q: So out all of those fourteen years  I mean as often as you've been in, defense lawyers have never asked for handwritten notes? A: No, they have not. Q: If those notes still existed, where would they exist? A: Like I said, they'd be properly destroyed  that's what I believe ha[s] happened to them. I don't take  I transferred sections  I don't take paperwork that I don't need to take with me to another section. So when I don't need stuff, I discard them properly. Q: Is there generally a policy in the police department to destroy all hand-written notes after they're transposed into a report? A: I'm not aware. Q: And how soon after you made the report would these notes be destroyed? A: I couldn't say, like I said, I transferred sections. Usually, when you clear out your area, that's when you discard things that you don't need. So I'm guessing when I transferred to this other unit. Q: Would you be the one that would actually destroy the notes? A: Yes. At the conclusion of the hearing the circuit court ruled that Rodrigues voluntarily, knowingly, [and] intelligently gave the statements indicated [to Motooka and Detective Kanemitsu]. Detective Kanemitsu testified on the same day as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief. He again addressed the circumstances of Rodrigues's December 19, 2001 police interview, including the facts that Rodrigues had not requested an attorney, had been briefed fully as to his rights, and had given a full statement without Detective Kanemitsu having made any threats or promises or employed any coercion. The prosecution then asked Detective Kanemitsu the following: Q: Did you  after you took Mr. Rodrigues'[s] statement  . . . what is your general practice with respect to interviewing individuals under these circumstances with respect to tape-recording statements? A: For myself, basically, I would read them their rights, discuss what the case was about; and then ask them if they wouldn't mind[] having them  their statement tape-recorded so I wouldn't get any facts mixed up or anything like that. Q: Okay. What was Mr. Rodrigues'[s] response with respect to whether or not he was okay with the conversation being tape-recorded? A: As I recall, he did not wish to be tape-recorded. Q: During the interview process, Detective Kanemitsu, did you take notes? A: Yes, I did. Q: And were those notes incorporated into your police report? A: Yes, sir. Q:. . . . Was it your practice to type or create a report as to the conversation that you would have with the witness or a suspect that same day as you spoke with that person? A: Yes, as a usual practice. (Emphasis added.) Rodrigues concedes that he did not object at the time to the question or response concerning his refusal to be tape-recorded. On cross-examination, defense counsel picked up the thread, dwelling extensively on Detective Kanemitsu's note-taking procedures: Q: The notes that you made from the conversation you had with Mr. Rodrigues in December of 2001, do you have those notes? A: No, I do not. . . . . Q:. . . . You related that you normally try to transpose the notes into a report on the same day that you take the notes, is this correct? A: Yes. Q: Are there instances where you don't get to transpose the notes into the computer until the next day or [a] couple of days later? A: In the case of me being . . . a Detective, it was normal practice for me to type my notes as I've gotten statements or as I get statements. Prior to, as a patrol man, the day might be drawn out where you might talk to several suspects, and you might have to  Q: Okay. Let me ask you the question then[,] as a detective[,] . . . whether there are any instances where it could be the [latter]. A: I do not recall, but it is possible. Q: . . . [Y]our notes, . . . do you take shorthand? A: No, I do not. Q: Okay. So . . . you're just trying to jot down ideas as you  A: I take down primary components of a statement, I guess you could say, or the main  what he's actually telling me, whoever I interviewed. Q: Okay. Is it in an outline form or  A: There's no real form to it, I guess. Rodrigues testified the next day and essentially reiterated the statement that he had given Detective Kanemitsu. He did, however, contradict Detective Kanemitsu's testimony concerning the trailer that accompanied the welder, maintaining that, when he complained about its run-down condition, Tony had offered to provide a friend's trailer upon which Rodrigues could transport the machine. He testified that, on the day he received the welder and alternate trailer from Tony, he hoisted the welder onto his truck at the HC & S shop, discovering in the process that the trailer was stainless steel. On the same day, he chopped up and discarded a different, older trailer of his own, keeping only the spindles, and then called Tony to inform him that the stainless steel trailer could be picked up, whereupon Tony informed Rodrigues that he could keep it. During closing arguments, defense counsel again questioned the accuracy of Detective Kanemitsu's notes: I believe Mr. Kanemitsu, in taking notes, didn't hear everything that was being said. Just like the judge told you, when you're listening to testimony, you know, don't get so into taking notes that you miss testimony. The statement that Detective Kanemitsu got was basically purchased [sic] from Tony for X amount of dollars and somehow it got to where  and he did mention old military trailer and spindles supposedly with Rey. . . . I believe he heard spindles, wrote down spindles, old military trailer. He somehow got, when he transposed all this into his notes, whenever  from notes, which we don't have the benefit of, to a brief report, that the spindles ended up with Rey rather than the trailer. On April 12, 2004, the jury found Rodrigues guilty of theft in the second degree. On June 15, 2004, the circuit court entered a judgment of conviction and sentence. Rodrigues filed a timely notice of appeal on July 9, 2004.