Opinion ID: 1163316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Aku's Testimony

Text: The error in this case, however, emanates from the circuit court's decision to exclude Aku's proffered testimony at the suppression hearing. The due process guarantee of a fair trial under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 14, of the Hawai`i Constitution confers upon the accused in criminal proceedings a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. State v. Matafeo, 71 Haw. 183, 185, 787 P.2d 671, 672 (1990) (citations omitted). Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The right to a fair hearing also extends to pretrial suppression hearings. State v. Mitake, 64 Haw. 217, 221-24, 638 P.2d 324, 327-329 (1981) (citations omitted). Once it is determined that a pre-trial suppression hearing is warranted under the circumstances of a particular case, . . . the due process clause requires that a defendant be afforded a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of admissibility[.] Id., at 221-22, 638 P.2d at 327-28 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, a defendant's right to present relevant evidence is not without limitation and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. State v. Nizam, 7 Haw. App 402, 410, 771 P.2d 899, 904-05 (1989) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The prosecution contends that Aku's testimony and photographs were not relevant under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) 401 [15] and, therefore, were either inadmissible under HRE 402 [16] or excludable as cumulative evidence under HRE 403. [17] [D]ifferent standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. However, the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a judgment call on the part of the trial court. Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawai`i 287, 293-94, 893 P.2d 138, 144-45 (1995) (quoting Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 319-20, 844 P.2d 670, 676 (1993), reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 847 P.2d 263 (1993)) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, evidentiary decisions based on HRE 401 are reviewed under the right/wrong standard of review. See, e.g., State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai`i 307, 314, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129 (1996) (citation omitted). Evidentiary decisions based on HRE 403, which require a judgment call by the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., State v. Kaiama, 81 Hawai`i 15, 22, 911 P.2d 735, 742 (1996) (citation omitted). Although the precise reason for the circuit court's decision to exclude Aku's testimony is unclear, it would appear that the court relied in part upon HRE 401 and 402 as the bases of its decision to exclude Aku's testimony. As discussed in section II.F.1. of this opinion, the exigency in this case stemmed largely from Officer Mariani's observing Pulse stir in his sleep with a gun in his immediate reach and control. Aku's testimony was directly relevant to contradict Officer Mariani's bare assertion that he saw Pulse with the gun inside the cabin. Accordingly, the circuit court erred to the extent that it may have concluded that Aku's testimony was irrelevant under HRE 401 and, therefore, inadmissible under HRE 402. The prosecution claims that the court's exclusion of Aku's testimony was justified by HRE 403 because Aku's testimony is cumulative of the testimony of the officers who were present at the time of the search. In order for evidence to be considered cumulative for HRE 403 purposes, it must be substantially the same as other evidence that has already been received. See Aga v. Hundahl, 78 Hawai`i 230, 241, 891 P.2d 1022, 1032 (1995) (holding that one expert's testimony could be considered cumulative where it did not offer a different opinion than another expert's prior testimony); State v. Klafta, 73 Haw. 109, 115, 831 P.2d 512, 516 (1992) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting witnesses' testimonies over the defendant's objection that the testimonies were cumulative where the witnesses each observed many of the same things, but they also observed some things which were different); see also Monlux v. General Motors Corp., 68 Haw. 358, 363, 714 P.2d 930, 933 (1986); In re Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., 67 Haw. 425, 430-31, 690 P.2d 274, 278 (1984). According to Pulse's offer of proof, Aku would have contradicted the officers' testimony. Therefore, we hold that the exclusion of Aku's testimony as cumulative under HRE 403 was an abuse of discretion. The circuit court also stated in its ruling that Aku's testimony would not have affected the court's assessment of Officer Mariani's credibility because with respect to the testimony that Mr. Aku would have been able to provide, which is that virtually no one can see within this cabin area unless they are standing on the water, it would just raise an issue of credibility. And, again, this has to do with the person's ability  one particular person's ability to see, Officer Mariani, in the night in question. And Mr. Aku apparently has not been at the scene during the evening hours so that he would be able to make that statement with respect to the conditions at night as opposed to during the day. As we have noted, in a suppression hearing, due process requires that a criminal defendant be afforded a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of the admissibility of the evidence. Mitake, 64 Haw. at 221-22, 638 P.2d at 327-28. Therefore, at minimum, the court must remain impartial and refrain from assessing a witness's credibility until after that witness has testified. In the instant case, the court appears to have found that Officer Mariani's testimony was credible prior to hearing Aku's proffered impeachment testimony. Based on this finding, the court erroneously declined to hear Aku's proffered testimony. Accordingly, we hold the circuit court's refusal to allow Aku to offer relevant testimony in support of Pulse's motion to suppress violated Pulse's due process right to a fair hearing. We take this opportunity to also clarify the proper use of an offer of proof. As indicated above, the court erroneously opted to exclude Aku's testimony following Pulse's offer of proof on the basis that the proffered testimony would just raise an issue of credibility. This ruling reflects a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of an offer of proof, which is to provide an adequate record for appellate review and to assist the trial court in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 20(a) (Tillers rev.1983); see Kelekolio, 74 Haw. at 522-23, 849 P.2d at 78. Therefore, the court's determination on an offer of proof is limited to the issue of whether the proffered evidence is relevant and admissible, not whether a witness may or may not be credible. There being no other cogent grounds for its exclusion, we hold that the circuit court erred in excluding Aku's proffered testimony.