Opinion ID: 2629770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cordeiro's Points Of Error

Text: Cordeiro's first and second points of error challenge his first degree robbery conviction in connection with the Blaisdell case. First, Cordeiro asserts that the indictment in the Blaisdell case failed to expressly name either the victim of the theft or the person against whom Cordeiro used force. Because he raises the issue for the first time on appeal, Cordeiro urges this court to recognize the alleged defect as plain error, warranting reversal of his first degree robbery conviction. Second, Cordeiro urges that the circuit court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury (1) that it must [unanimously] find that one or more specifically named persons was a victim of the theft, (2) that the victim's awareness of the theft is a necessary element of first degree robbery, and (3) that the jury could find [Cordeiro] guilty only of the murder [of Blaisdell] if [it] determined that [Cordeiro] committed that offense concurrently with the robbery [offense]. Cordeiro's third point is that the circuit court plainly erred in consolidating the Cornelio, Iona, and Kapika cases with the Blaisdell case; accordingly, Cordeiro urges this court to vacate all of his convictions and remand for separate trials in the Blaisdell and Iona cases. Cordeiro's remaining points of error beseech this court to vacate all of his convictions and remand for a new trial. His fourth point is that the circuit court: (1) erred, over his objection, in admitting (a) evidence of Cordeiro's involvement with illegal drugs and (b) testimony regarding a threat that he allegedly directed against a witness; and (2) plainly erred in instructing the jury with regard to the purpose for which it could consider such other bad acts evidence (Cordeiro not having objected to the instruction at trial). Cordeiro's fifth point is that the circuit court erred in allowing Anthony Mamoukian, M.D., a pathologist who testified for the prosecution, to render an opinion regarding the trajectory of the bullet that killed Blaisdell; according to Cordeiro, Dr. Mamoukian was not qualified as a homicide reconstruction expert. As his sixth point, Cordeiro argues that the circuit court erred in precluding him from calling Wayne Hill, a purported homicide reconstruction expert, as a witness. By doing so, Cordeiro contends that the circuit court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. In his seventh point, Cordeiro argues that, in limiting his cross-examination of various witnesses, the circuit court violated his constitutional right to confrontation. In his eighth point, Cordeiro claims that the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecution, over his objection, to adduce Cornelio's testimony regarding his religious beliefs; Cordeiro asserts that such testimony was simply a way to bolster [Cornelio's] credibility, in violation of Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 610 (1998). Cordeiro's ninth point is that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a new trial; according to Cordeiro, the prosecution knowingly adduced perjured testimony. Cordeiro's tenth point of error is a prosecutorial misconduct claim. Cordeiro argues: (1) that the two deputy prosecuting attorneys (DPAs) work[ed] in tandem during his trial to harass his counsel; (2) that the prosecution made frivolous objections for the purpose of interrupting the defense counsel's cross-examination; (3) that, in closing argument, the DPA constantly referr[ed] to [Cordeiro] as a liar and personally vouch[ed] for [the prosecution's] witnesses; and (4) that the cumulative effect of the foregoing conduct deprived Cordeiro of a fair trial. [8] Consequently, Cordeiro argues that the circuit court erred in denying his two motions for a mistrial. Cordeiro's eleventh and final point of error is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which he fashions from a number of his other points. Cordeiro argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of defense counsel's failure (1) to object to the prosecution's joinder motions, (2) to file a motion to dismiss the allegedly defective robbery count in the Blaisdell indictment, (3) to object to the circuit court's first degree robbery instruction, (4) to move for prompt limiting instructions in connection with the other bad acts evidence, and (5) adequately to investigate an allegation that the prosecution knowingly introduced perjured testimony.