Opinion ID: 4540255
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Hsu’s testimony

Text: The State called Officer Hsu, who gave testimony substantively similar to his April 2, 2015 testimony at the hearing on Ikimaka’s motion to suppress relating to the traffic stop and the seizure of Ikimaka’s truck. At trial, Officer Hsu did not testify about Numazawa’s drug history or the dog sniff. Officer Hsu also testified that he had worked for KPD for approximately seven years and had participated in “[a]pproximately over 50” drug-related investigations. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  On cross-examination, Officer Hsu testified that he did not see Ikimaka touch any of the drugs or ingest the drugs, and the following exchange took place. Q. You never saw Mr. Ikimaka smoking or otherwise ingesting any drugs; correct? A. For that night or -- Q. Ever? A. Yes. I never seen him do that, yes. Q. And you have no way of knowing whether Mr. Ikimaka -- THE COURT: Approach. (The following was heard at the bench.) THE COURT: You just realize you asked a very open-ended question and -- [DEFENSE]: I knew the answer, Judge. THE COURT: So it’s real risky. I just want to say I thought it was a very risky question and that is open for the redirect examination. Okay. Thank you. (The following was heard in open court.) BY [DEFENSE]: Q. Officer [Hsu], you have no way of knowing whether Mr. Ikimaka ever intended to possess any of those drugs; correct? A. Correct. [THE STATE]: Your Honor, approach. THE COURT: Approach. (The following was heard at the bench.) THE COURT: This is an interesting question. So, [State], let me hear the argument. [THE STATE]: First of all, it’s speculation. The officer’s not going to (inaudible). Third, it’s a question for the jury -- I mean intended -- THE COURT: I think I’m going to allow him to answer because this is another area of redirect that you can go into. The door was opened, how you establish intent and all that. You can do what you need to, but the issue of intent was raised by [the defense], but only for Mr. Ikimaka . . . . [THE STATE]: Okay. Thank you. On redirect examination, the following exchange took place. Q: Now, I believe [the defense] asked about Larry Ikimaka’s intent regarding the drugs found in the vehicle. As a police officer, would you say that Larry Ikimaka had intent to possess drugs, had knowledge of drugs, if he stated “Just arrest me and don’t take my truck”? [DEFENSE]: May we approach? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Approach. (The following was heard at the bench.) [DEFENSE]: I think it calls for speculation. THE COURT: This is all the intent questions that was asked . . . during cross-examination. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  [DEFENSE]: But the intent -- but he can’t testify -- he’s speculating as to what my client. THE COURT: You asked him to speculate about intent, so this is just a reasonable -- a logical, reasonable follow up to the questions. That’s why I brought you here when the question was asked. [DEFENSE]: Well, I thought you were talking about 404(b). I asked him whether he has any way to know Mr. Ikimaka’s opinion, and she’s asking him and saying hey, he’s speculating about what Mr. Ikimaka’s intent is. THE COURT: But you asked him to speculate on the issue of intent. He answered. So now I’m going to allow the State to ask the question. You also asked questions about whether he had prior drug use. I don’t know whether he did or didn’t, but that certainly opens the door. [DEFENSE]: I didn’t ask that question. I asked on that date and he said “ever?” So I didn’t want to leave it hanging for the jury. That’s why I said “yeah” after. That’s the way he responded. THE COURT: You opened the door on that. I don’t know whether there’s any information on that. That’s why I brought you up and said this was a risky line of questioning. I mean, it was apparent to the Court. But the strategy you take during your questioning, I don’t get involved in. [DEFENSE]: I did that but what I’m saying with regards to -- I don’t think she’s allowed to ask him if he has a prior history unless she can go through the whole 404(b). That's not what I asked him. I asked him on that day and he asked me “ever?” So it wasn’t fair to me to leave it hanging for the jury. THE COURT: I don’t know what's fair or not. All I know is the question was asked so I’m going to allow it. I don’t know if there’s any relevant information. But as far as the intent part, sure, I'm going to allow [the State] to question about intent given it was raised by you in crossexamination. So you cannot raise an issue and then not expect the other parties to follow up on that, so this is just a reasonable follow up. So your objection is overruled. Thank you. (The following was heard in open court.) . . . . BY [THE STATE]: Q. And, Officer [Hsu], would the fact that Mr. Ikimaka tried to stop the police from taking his truck by saying that indicate his intent to possess drugs in the truck? A. Yes.