Opinion ID: 4541427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ICA’s summary disposition order

Text: The ICA affirmed the district court’s judgment in an SDO. Su, SDO at 1. The ICA stated it “d[id] not disagree” with the district court’s finding that “each instance did not constitute examples of untruthfulness under HRE Rule 608(b).” Su, SDO at 5. As to the first instance, the ICA concluded, “The transcript of ADLRO proceedings submitted by Su reflected that Officer Spiker had been shown the Notice of Revocation form, which he acknowledged he marked after making copies and that he made a mistake and did not follow his normal procedure.” Id. The ICA footnoted the fact that neither the purportedly inconsistent ADLRO forms, nor further transcripts in the Kuni proceedings about the purportedly inconsistent ADLRO forms, were entered into the record with Su’s first notice of intent. Su, SDO at 3 n.2. As to the second instance, the ICA concluded, “The transcript of Officer Spiker’s testimony in the Lee case showed that he testified as to estimates of distance and speed and that he was not certain of these numbers.” Su, SDO at 5. As to the third instance, the ICA concluded, “Finally, although the screen shots of the surveillance videos in the Thomas case did not depict, for example, the clenched fist or a 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  classic fighting stance that Officer Spiker maintained Thomas displayed during the incident, neither the screen shots nor the video recordings themselves purported to be a complete documentation of the incident.” Su, SDO at 5-6. The ICA considered each of the instances to be “fairly . . . characterized as mistakes, inaccuracies in memory or differences in interpretations of another’s actions.” Su, SDO at 5. The ICA went on to observe the following: Furthermore, the District Court, having consolidated the hearing on the Notices of Intent with trial was able to review all the materials included in those Notices and the additional exhibits presented, and had “in its possession sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness” and did not abuse its discretion by preventing further cross-examination of Officer Spiker on these incidents. Su, SDO at 6 (citing State v. Sabog, 108 Hawaiʻi 102, 107, 117 P.3d 834, 839 (App. 2005)).