Opinion ID: 1206395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment

Text: The first question raised by appellant is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment. Appellant contends that the grand jury improperly indicted him on the basis of certain hearsay testimony elicited during the grand jury proceeding. During the course of the grand jury hearing, Honolulu Police Detective Paul Trepte was called to testify regarding his investigation of the Linda Knodle homicide. The grand jury transcript, a copy of which is a part of the record in this case, reveals that Detective Trepte testified, inter alia, to the following matters: (1) When he arrived at the Waikiki Gateway Hotel on the morning of November 26, 1974, he found the body of a partially nude, young woman in the restroom of the hotel launderette, and the woman was pronounced dead, at the scene; and (2) An autopsy was performed on the woman and the cause of death comes back as `asphyxia, due to strangulation.' Based upon the testimony of Trepte and of other witnesses, the grand jury indicted appellant on the charge of murder. [2] Appellant maintains that because Trepte's testimony as to the fact and cause of death was hearsay, the indictment was improperly returned under the pronouncements of State v. Layton, 53 Haw. 513, 497 P.2d 559 (1972). [3] In Layton, this Court agreed with the proposition that hearsay evidence in a grand jury proceeding should only be used in certain exceptional situations. Appellant asserts that the exceptions stated in Layton do not apply here, and, therefore, the hearsay statements made by Trepte as to the fact and cause of death should not have been considered by the grand jury. We agree that the testimony of Detective Trepte relating to the fact and cause of death was hearsay. [4] In addition, Trepte's testimony as to the fact and cause of death was crucial to the grand jury's finding that probable cause existed, for no other testimony was presented which would have indicated that Linda Knodle was the victim of a homicide. Therefore, if Trepte's hearsay testimony was impermissible under Layton, the indictment should have been dismissed. We do not regard Layton as having established an ironclad prohibition on the use of hearsay testimony in grand jury proceedings. In Layton, the court quoted a passage from United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2d Cir.1966), which expressed the following: Hearsay evidence should only be used [in a grand jury proceeding] when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge. 53 Haw. at 515, 497 P.2d at 561. Describing the above-quoted passage as an admonition to prosecutors, the court in Layton expressed agreement with it. We are of the opinion, however, that this admonition must be viewed as  at most  a policy expression and not as a hard and fast rule, because the court in Umans was mainly concerned with excessive use of hearsay evidence in grand jury proceedings. Moreover, it was never stated in Layton that the effect of Umans was to require that an indictment be quashed whenever crucial hearsay evidence is presented to a grand jury absent a showing of necessity. The language of Layton fails to indicate that the above-quoted passage was intended to become an absolute rule in Hawaii. We do agree with the position taken in Umans that excessive use of hearsay testimony tends to be destructive of the grand jury's function. See Umans, 368 F.2d at 730, quoted in Layton, 53 Haw. at 515, 497 P.2d at 561. The preferable practice would be, of course, for the prosecution to present witnesses who are able to testify from first-hand knowledge whenever possible. [5] Nevertheless, where the hearsay testimony was not used deliberately in the place of better evidence to improve the case for an indictment, dismissal of the indictment is not required. In the instant case there is nothing to suggest that the testimony of Detective Trepte did not accurately reflect the findings of the official autopsy or that there was any improper purpose behind the prosecutor's use of hearsay to establish the fact and cause of death. The grand jury properly considered the hearsay testimony given by Detective Trepte. The motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.