Opinion ID: 2653520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Initial Trial in Hawai#i

Text: On August 19, 1981, Maryann was charged with: kidnapping Leach; robbing Leach; exerting unauthorized control of Leach’s vehicle; kidnapping Hasker; robbing Hasker; murdering Hasker in violation of HRS § 707-701;2 exerting unauthorized control of Hasker’s vehicle; and burglarizing Hasker’s residence. William was charged with the same offenses as Maryann, except that he was not charged with Hasker’s murder. Pursuant to a plea agreement, William pleaded guilty to robbing Hasker in exchange 2 HRS § 707-701 (1976), provided in relevant part: “a person commits the offense of murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person.” -6-  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  for his testimony against Maryann. All other charges against William were dismissed. William was called as a prosecution witness at Maryann’s first trial in 1982, and testified that Maryann shot Hasker. William testified that he pleaded nolo contendere to Arauza’s murder, even though he believed Maryann had shot and killed Arauza, because he thought he was responsible for her actions under California’s felony murder rule. William, thus, suggested to the jury that he pleaded guilty to felony murder, when he in fact pleaded nolo contendere to murder and the use of a firearm allegation. The circuit court also allowed other individuals to testify regarding the Arauza incident. Maryann was subsequently found guilty as charged on all counts. On the murder conviction, Maryann was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, and a mandatory minimum term of ten years. Maryann appealed her conviction to this court and argued in relevant part that the trial court erred in permitting evidence of her other crimes because: [T]he Arauza case was not relevant to establish any of the exceptions to [HRE] Rule 404. It did not provide motive since the Arauza case occurred after the present case, and the two cases were not related. It did not prove opportunity since the crimes were committed several days and several thousand miles apart from each other. It did not prove preparation or plan since no common or continuing scheme was established by the State. It did not prove intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident since these were not issues at trial. . . . It did not establish identity since [Maryann] testified that she was present at the general scene of the shooting. -7-  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Finally, it did not prove modus operandi since the two crimes were dissimilar in nature. . . . Assuming, arguendo, that one or more of the exceptions were relevant, the prejudice against [Maryann] far outweighed any probative value in view of the issues and the evidence available to the State. This court issued a Memorandum Opinion affirming Maryann’s convictions, stating that it found “no merit” to any of Maryann’s arguments. B. Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition Maryann filed an HRPP Rule 40 Petition for Post- Conviction Relief on August 15, 2000, arguing, inter alia, that: (1) her murder conviction should be dismissed, or she should receive a new trial, because William admitted during a parole hearing before the California Parole Board that he was responsible for Hasker’s murder; and (2) she was denied a fair trial because the State did not disclose that William pleaded nolo contendere to first degree murder with the use of a firearm in California and was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for that offense. Acker v. State, No. 27081, 2007 WL 2800803, at  (Haw. App. Sept. 27, 2007) (SDO). The circuit court granted Maryann’s HRPP Rule 40 Petition, vacated her conviction and sentence, and ordered that she receive a new trial for all counts. Id. On appeal, the ICA determined in relevant part: The State did not disclose to [Maryann] that William had pleaded nolo contendere to both murdering Arauza and using a gun in the commission of that murder. Thus, contrary to the impression left by William’s testimony, his first degree murder conviction in California had not been based on a felony murder -8-  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  theory, but on the allegation that he had been the person pulling the trigger. The State also failed to disclose to [Maryann] that William had been sentenced in California to life with the possibility of parole and, instead, disclosed an FBI “rap sheet” that erroneously reported William’s sentence as life without parole. We conclude that the State’s failure to disclose the true facts concerning William’s nolo contendere plea, conviction, and sentence in California denied Acker her right to a fair trial on her Murder charge. Id. at 2-3. Accordingly, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s order to the extent that it vacated Maryann’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial on only that count. Id. at .