Opinion ID: 4469365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Child Welfare Services Issue

Text: In his January 3, 2017 motion in limine, Williams included a request to exclude “[a]ny reference to an investigation and case by the Child Welfare Services, Department of Human Services, State of Hawai[ʻ]i and any legal issues stemming from 5  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  said investigation and case” as item 2.c. At the January 9, 2017 hearing on Williams’s motions in limine, the family court granted this request. Williams’s jury trial took place on January 9, 11, and 12, 2017. Before the parties’ opening statements, the family court explained, “Please remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence. What actually counts is the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits or other things that are received as evidence.” During opening statements on January 9, the deputy prosecuting attorney stated: [Y]ou will find out that [minor son] is subsequently transferred to another family and reunited with his mother. You’ll meet Detective Melvin Raquedan, who assists with the transfer of custody. You’ll also meet social worker Robert Asato, who aids in the transfer from Tripler Army Medical Center after [minor son] is treated and released and how he is ultimately reunited down the road with his mother. Williams did not raise a specific objection to these statements. On January 11, Wiliams’s deputy public defender requested an offer of proof regarding what testimony the deputy prosecuting attorney expected to elicit from witnesses Melvin Raquedan of the Honolulu Police Department (“Detective Raquedan”) and social worker Robert Asato. The deputy prosecuting attorney indicated that both witnesses were being called to establish “a material element” of “custody of the 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  child, who was formerly or solely in the defendant’s care, and the transfer out of that care.” After the deputy public defender objected to any evidence regarding “care out of Mr. Williams’ hands,” the deputy prosecuting attorney stated that he would not “get into what happened to the child. It’s essentially to establish the parent, guardianship care and custody.” The next day, the State called Detective Raquedan as a witness. During his direct examination, the following exchanged occurred: [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: And in order to explain the next steps you took, what did dispatch request your assistance with? [WITNESS]: Assist in taking police custody of a minor. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Objection, Your Honor. Violates the motion.[6] THE COURT: No speaking objections. At the bench please. (The following proceedings had at the bench:) THE COURT: All right. So the objection is violates the motions in limine? [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Yes, Your Honor. The concern raised yesterday on record. THE COURT: All right. At the end of the day in terms of what was discussed at court, I believe I only permitted testimony with respect to what the status of the child and relative to the defendant having care and custody of the 6 This was presumably the granted motion in limine prohibiting “[a]ny reference to an investigation and case by the Child Welfare Services, Department of Human Services, State of Hawai[ʻ]i and any legal issues stemming from said investigation and case,” as well as the discussions that had taken place the day before regarding the nature of the evidence to be elicited. 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  child versus transfer of custody. I believe that was precluded. So where do you intend to go with this? [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Yes. The prosecution intends to show that in order to have the transfer of custody from the father’s care to the State, there needs to be a twoparty assistance, and he responded to that in order to work with Mr. Asato. That is what he was given via dispatch and that’s all he’s going to testify to with respect to assisting in the transfer of the custody. THE COURT: Okay. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: But that’s what it is. And the State does not intend to get into the details anywhere. But he was the responding officer. THE COURT: All right. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Your Honor, I think that’s highly prejudicial -- the fact that two witnesses are needed to establish one of the elements. I think the route that the State is taking is unnecessary and it sheds Mr. Williams in a different light than it would otherwise need to do to establish that same element. I think they can do it in a multiple number of other ways, and I think it still does violate. I don’t think –- THE COURT: All right. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: With respect to the establishment, Detective Raquedan is expected to testify that he actually completed and filled out the protective custody form. On that form [minor son] is known by another name. So he is a necessary material witness to establish that this child was present. And he as well as Robert Asato signed the protective custody –- . . . . THE COURT: So why is it that you can’t simply ask the witness that as part of his duties, did he come into contact with these individuals -- the complainant, and during the course of his investigation or what he did, he ascertained defendant as the parent? [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Okay. And the State will just proceed that way. THE COURT: That would essentially permit you to have him testimony [sic] to things that are within his knowledge but without necessarily going beyond what’s necessary to establish the elements of the offense. Because what happened with the child happened, which really has no 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  relevance. And while the defense is claiming that it is highly prejudicial, I’m not so sure that’s the case. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: I’ll proceed. I’ll move on. THE COURT: The objection’s sustained. And you may proceed as I’ve indicated.[7] [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Understood. Thanks. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Thank you, Your Honor. . . . . [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: And did you ultimately work in tandem with Mr. Asato on behalf of the Department of Human Services? [WITNESS]: Yes. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Court will strike that last response. You will not consider it for any purpose whatsoever, ladies and gentlemen. Although the family court sustained the deputy public defender’s objection and struck Detective Raquedan’s reference to the “Department of Human Services,” of which Child Welfare Services is a part, the State later called social worker Robert Asato to testify, and elicited the following evidence: [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Good morning, sir. Can you please tell us your name and occupation for the record. [WITNESS]: Robert Jason Asato. I’m an investigative social worker, Child Welfare Services. [DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. 7 Although the family court sustained the objection, it did not strike the response that prompted the objection, that Detective Raquedan had been requested by dispatch to “[a]ssist in taking police custody of a minor.” 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: You can respond. I’m sorry. Tell us your name and occupation again. [WITNESS]: Robert Jason Asato. Investigative social worker, Child Welfare Services. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Thank you. And Mr. Asato, I just have several questions for you. On September 24th, 2014, were you involved or did you come across [minor son]? [WITNESS]: Yes. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: And with respect to [minor son], were you able -- during the course of your investigation, able to determine who was the sole caretaker of [minor son] on that date? [WITNESS]: Yes. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: And the sole caretaker according to your investigation -- would it be fair to say was his father, Patrick Williams? [WITNESS]: Yes. [DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: And just to clarify, September 24th 2014, was that the first day that you were assigned and came across [minor son]? [WITNESS]: Yes. In addition, during the testimony of Dr. Jennifer Doerrige (“Dr. Doerrige”), whose testimony is further discussed in the next section, the deputy prosecuting attorney asked, “[D]id you alert authorities after treating [minor son],” to which Dr. Doerrige responded, “Yes. CPS was contacted. That’s Child Protective Services.”8 8 Although the official term is “Child Welfare Services,” it appears “Child Protective Services” or “CPS” is still often used in common parlance. 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  B. Other Trial Evidence Relevant to Issues on Certiorari The trial also included the following evidence relevant to the issues on certiorari.
Around 9:30 a.m. on September 22, 2014, Williams brought minor son to Wahiawa General Hospital. That day happened to be minor son’s second birthday. Nurse Santana, who triaged minor son upon his arrival at the hospital, testified she saw an “obvious deformity” in minor son’s left femur and that minor son appeared distressed. Williams told her he saw minor son jump off the bed the night before around 10:30 p.m. and that minor son’s leg looked more swollen that morning. At around 10:03 a.m., Nurse Santana administered fentanyl, a drug which can cause sleepiness and a dulling of the senses, to minor son.
Nurse Blakey then assessed minor son at 10:30 a.m. and noted that he was alert and comfortable lying in bed, with Williams at his bedside, and exhibited “no apparent distress” after Nurse Santana had administered fentanyl. Because minor son’s condition had stabilized, at around noon, Nurse Blakey assisted in discharging him. Minor son then went to Tripler Army Medical Center (“Tripler”) for further treatment. 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Dr. Doerrige was the emergency room physician who treated minor son at Wahiawa General Hospital on September 22, 2014. She conducted a basic physical examination of minor son, and noticed a deformity in his left leg with soft tissue swelling. After discovering an “obvious” left femur fracture, she ordered x-rays and a whole body x-ray called a babygram. Dr. Doerrige diagnosed minor son with a left transverse slightly angulated significantly displaced fracture of the left femur as well as some soft tissue swelling at the site of the fracture. Dr. Doerrige also opined that, had minor son not been treated, the fracture could have caused serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of his left leg, and that one leg would have been significantly shorter than the other, which would have prevented minor son from running, jumping, hopping, and skipping. Dr. Doerrige further opined that minor son’s injury was not consistent with jumping and falling off of a bed onto a carpeted floor. She testified that the femur is a very strong bone that is difficult to break. She testified: The story wasn’t very consistent because, one, most kids . . . learn to jump between ages of 24 months and 36 months. So the jumping aspect was a little suspect. He might be advanced for his age. And then the fact that it probably would be greater force than that. Not like a twostory bed, but a two-story building that would have that kind of force to generate that kind of fracture. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Dr. Doerrige also testified that femur fractures are notoriously painful and that most children would be crying; in a great deal of distress; and unable to walk, stand, or sleep through the night. Dr. Doerrige also related that while she treated minor son for his injury, Williams was apathetic, “[v]ery aloof and was off to the side. Was texting on his cell phone.” She also observed Williams giving minor son fist bumps when minor son was crying after coming back from being x-rayed. Dr. Doerrige then testified State’s Exhibits 10, 11, and 12 showed differing views of a femur fracture, the femur fracture in those exhibits was consistent with her diagnosis and examination of minor son, and the x-rays were a “fair and accurate depiction[] . . . of the left femur fracture sustained by [minor son].” Dr. Doerrige testified the upper left corner of the x-rays noted minor son’s name. When the State attempted to move these exhibits into evidence, however, the family court sustained the defense’s objection based on lack of foundation, and these x-rays were never received in evidence. Although Dr. Doerrige had testified she contacted “Child Protective Services” as noted earlier, during cross-examination by the deputy public defender, she also testified she could not rule out accidental trauma. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Dr. Norman Polk (“Dr. Polk”) served as minor son’s diagnostic radiologist at Wahiawa General Hospital. Dr. Polk had begun practicing medicine in Hawaiʻi during his residency at Tripler in 1975, where he worked for about four years. Dr. Polk was on duty as a radiologist at Wahiawa General Hospital on September 22, 2014. His involvement in minor son’s care consisted of viewing radiographs taken of minor son and speaking with Dr. Doerrige regarding his findings. He opined that minor son had a left femur mid-shaft fracture that was slightly angulated anteriorly. Dr. Polk also testified there was soft tissue swelling, but the babygram did not reveal any prior fractures. After being stabilized at Wahiawa General Hospital, minor son had been taken to Tripler for treatment. The deputy prosecuting attorney then began asking Dr. Polk whether he previously had the opportunity to view several x-ray images apparently taken at Tripler before coming to court that day. Dr. Polk responded that he had seen “the post-treated injury when [minor son] was at Tripler.” The deputy prosecuting attorney then asked Dr. Polk whether in his past experience, he had viewed x-ray images from Tripler. Dr. Polk then responded 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  in the affirmative to this question as well as another question regarding whether he relied on images from other hospitals. The deputy prosecuting attorney then handed State’s Exhibit 3 for identification to Dr. Polk and asked him to verify that the name, date of birth, and date of the image was “in line” with the x-rays he had previously reviewed regarding minor son. Dr. Polk agreed that “[t]hey appear[ed] to correlate.” Dr. Polk then began testifying as to what State’s Exhibit 3 for identification showed even before it was received in evidence. In summary, he described State’s Exhibit 3 as showing a left femur after it had been realigned. Although Dr. Polk did not testify that the image was of minor son’s left femur, he stated it “look[ed] [like a] fair and accurate” depiction of minor son’s fracture. The deputy prosecuting attorney then began asking about another Tripler x-ray, a lateral view x-ray of a left femur that had been realigned, marked as State’s Exhibit 4. The deputy public defender then objected that Dr. Polk had been testifying regarding exhibits yet to be received in evidence, and also asserted that no proper foundation had been laid for the admission of the x-rays. The family court disagreed and admitted State’s Exhibit 3 into evidence. The deputy public 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  defender raised a running objection to the State’s other exhibits. Dr. Polk then further explained what was depicted in State’s Exhibit 3: For the sake of discussion, this is the femur, or thigh bone is what people know it as. And this is the fracture here, the mid-portion. And these two pieces of bone have been separated. And if there’s no fracture the white line would be contiguous all the way through. The knee doesn’t have any obvious fracture. The tibia and fibula, which are the lower leg bones, don’t show any obvious fracture. This is the hip. There’s no displacement or fracture up here. Basically the fracture involves the midshaft. And now it looks like it’s well aligned for orthopedic purposes on this film. The white lines out here are the plaster cast. And the swelling is -- it’s basically adjacent to the area of the fractures. You don’t see the same sort of swelling down below. After foundational questions were asked similar to those asked of State’s Exhibit 3, State’s Exhibit 4 was also admitted into evidence. Dr. Polk then also opined that minor son’s injury would be consistent with jumping and falling off of a bed only “[i]f the bed was on a second story of a building.” He explained as follows: Children’s bones are unlike old people[’s bones] . . . . Children[’s] . . . bones tend to bend. . . . So it takes a lot of force to take a young kid’s leg -- and the femur is . . . one of the largest and strongest bones in the body -- to take it and actually break it in two pieces, snap it in two and to displace it, . . . that’s a lot of force. He also testified that a broken femur in a two-year-old is a “really unusual” injury, and is often related to non-accidental 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  trauma, such as an automobile accident, falling down the stairs, or blunt force trauma.
Christopher Happy, M.D. (“Dr. Happy”), the chief medical examiner for the City and County of Honolulu, testified for the defense. Dr. Happy testified he had “review[ed] . . . various X-ray images in [minor son’s] case,” and opined that a toddler could sustain a femur fracture from jumping and falling off of a bed, even if jumping onto a carpeted surface. He stated the vast majority of femur fractures are accidental. C. Appeal to the ICA and Application for Writ of Certiorari On appeal to the ICA, Williams presented three points of error: A. The [family] court plainly erred in failing to strike improper statements made by the prosecutor in opening statement. . . . . B. The [family] court erred in admitting the X-rays[9] into evidence without the necessary foundation. . . . . C. There was insufficient evidence to sustain Williams’s conviction of Assault in the Third Degree. The ICA rejected the challenges. As to the first issue, the ICA applied a plain error analysis on the grounds that 9 In his opening brief, Williams took issue with the admission of State’s Exhibits 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12. However, the family court did not admit State’s Exhibits 10, 11, and 12. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Williams had not objected to this portion of the State’s opening statements at trial. See Williams, SDO at 2 (citing Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (“HRPP”) Rule 52(b); State v. Sanchez, 82 Hawaiʻi 517, 528, 923 P.2d 934, 945 (App. 1996)).10 The ICA stated “the burden [is] on the defendant to show bad faith on the part of the prosecutor, unless the fundamental rights of the defendant were substantially prejudiced.” Williams, SDO at 3 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawaiʻi 202, 213, 921 P.2d 122, 133 (1996)) (alteration in original). The ICA also cited to State v. Valdivia, 95 Hawaiʻi 465, 479, 24 P.3d 661, 675 (2001), stating that this court concluded that even if a prosecutor’s comments were improper and made in bad faith, such misconduct was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the circuit court instructed the jury no fewer than three times that counsels’ statements and arguments were not evidence and not to be considered during deliberations; there was no evidence that the jury failed to adhere to those instructions.” Williams, SDO at 3–4. Similarly, although the ICA agreed the State’s comments were improper because the fact that minor son was taken out of Williams’s custody is unrelated to any of the elements of the offense, as the family court had instructed the jury both before 10 As discussed infra, an objection was not required due to the in limine ruling precluding such references. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  opening statements and when issuing general jury instructions that the attorneys’ comments were not evidence, and as the record did not demonstrate the jury failed to adhere to these instructions, it concluded the prosecutor’s improper comments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Williams, SDO at 4. As to the second issue, the ICA did not address whether a proper foundation had been laid for the admission of State’s Exhibits 3 and 4. Instead, the ICA ruled that even if the family court had erred in admitting the x-rays of minor son’s femur bone into evidence, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Williams, SDO at 4. The ICA referred to the testimony by Dr. Doerrige, Dr. Polk, and the two nurses regarding the extent of minor son’s injuries and the type of distress minor son had been in upon arriving at the hospital. See Williams, SDO at 4–5. The ICA also stated, “X-ray results are the type of data that doctors reasonably rely on in rendering a diagnosis and both doctors testified as to their observations that [minor son] suffered a fractured femur.” Id. As to the third issue, Williams had argued no evidence had been presented that he had caused bodily injury to minor son. The ICA noted, however, that Dr. Doerrige had testified that a broken femur is “notoriously painful” and “would cause most 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  children to cry, and would prevent a child from sleeping through the night, standing, or walking,” yet Williams, minor son’s sole caretaker, had not brought him to the hospital until approximately ten hours later. Williams, SDO at 5. The ICA also referred to the evidence that Williams had appeared aloof at the hospital despite minor son’s severe distress and pain. Id. Furthermore, the ICA pointed out that both Dr. Doerrige and Dr. Polk testified that minor son’s injuries were inconsistent with Williams’s explanation of jumping or falling off a bed. Williams, SDO at 5-6. The ICA also noted Dr. Doerrige’s testimony that children do not typically learn how to jump until over twenty-four months old, and minor son had just turned twenty-four months old. See Williams, SDO at 6. Viewing such evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the ICA concluded that “there is sufficient evidence that Williams at least recklessly caused [minor son] to suffer bodily injury.” Id. In his certiorari application, Williams essentially reasserts the same points of error: Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that: (1) the prosecutor’s improper comments constituted harmless error; (2) the [family] court did not err in admitting the x-rays into evidence without the improper [sic] foundation; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Williams’s conviction. 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER