Opinion ID: 1112237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts relating to the trial proceedings.

Text: On July 5, 1985, Estrada was indicted for attempted murder. [1] Beginning on July 12, 1985, defense counsel David Bettencourt (hereinafter Bettencourt) sought disclosure of 1) all of Officer Taguma's personnel records and complaints against him while a Honolulu Police Department (hereinafter HPD) officer and a Maui airport security guard; 2) all of Officer Taguma's medical records; and 3) any favorable evidence as defined by Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (hereinafter HRPP) Rule 16(b). [2] After initially opposing the discovery request as too broad and seeking confidential or irrelevant evidence, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (hereinafter State) reluctantly provided discovery. On January 6, 1986, just before the start of jury voir dire, Bettencourt orally moved to continue the trial because of State's tardy disclosure of a police report, involving Officer Taguma's ex-girlfriend Junette L. (hereinafter Junette), had prejudiced the defense. She had been romantically involved with Officer Taguma from 1979 to 1984 (including living with him intermittently between 1982 and 1984) but had broken up with him because of alleged physical abuse. On April 3, 1985, she had filed a complaint against Officer Taguma for harassing her and her then-fiance (now husband) Stephen H. (hereinafter Stephen). [3] Specifically, she had charged that Officer Taguma 1) had beaten her several times prior to and during August 1983; and 2) would often use his police authority to pull over Stephen's car. Her allegations were listed in a report prepared by MPD Officer Ramsey Anakalea (hereinafter the Anakalea Report) on August 28, 1985. Although the Anakalea Report had been given to Bettencourt on December 22, 1985, he complained State's dilatory tactics had made it impossible to prepare the defense. Bettencourt also argued that, although Junette had been initially willing to talk with him, she had later refused to testify, unless subpoenaed, after State had contacted her (the record reflects only that State had contacted her, not what was said). Judge Mossman denied the continuance request ruling adequate time to prepare the defense had existed. On January 9, 1986, prior to allowing Junette to take the stand during trial, Judge Mossman conducted an in limine hearing to determine the relevancy of her testimony. At this time, she revealed the existence of another report against Officer Taguma prepared by the Maui Prosecutor's Office Victim-Witness Counselor Dr. Brian Ogawa (hereinafter the Ogawa Report) on September 16, 1985. State had not disclosed the Ogawa Report. Junette subsequently recanted or qualified most of her earlier accusations, but Bettencourt again orally moved for a continuance citing the necessity to have time to review and investigate the Ogawa Report. Judge Mossman denied the continuance motion, held both the Anakalea and Ogawa Reports inadmissible, and barred Junette from testifying at trial. Judge Mossman ruled that Junette's charges had been exaggerated, were not relevant, or alternatively, even if they were relevant, their probative value would be substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time. Bettencourt also sought discovery of a confidential HPD Internal Affairs Division (hereinafter IAD) file on Officer Taguma and testing materials used by psychologist Dr. Harold Hall (hereinafter Dr. Hall) to evaluate Officer Taguma and Estrada. The IAD file allegedly contained information that Officer Taguma had been forced to resign from HPD for misconduct and violation of regulations. Bettencourt also asserted that the IAD file would show that Officer Taguma had lied on applying for employment with MPD by not revealing the true reasons for leaving HPD (Officer Taguma had written about wanting to move to Maui as the reason for resigning from HPD). After an in camera review, Judge Mossman ruled the IAD file plus Dr. Hall's materials were irrelevant and sealed them. Neither the defense nor State knew the contents of either item. Officer Taguma then testified. During Officer Taguma's cross-examination, Judge Mossman prohibited inquiry into whether Officer Taguma would file a civil lawsuit against Estrada after the outcome of the criminal trial. Bettencourt, though, made Officer Taguma admit contacting a civil attorney (after the guilty verdict issued, Officer Taguma did file suit). Various other prosecution witnesses testified about Officer Taguma's injuries and the evidence indicating guilt. Estrada first testified for the defense. Among the more significant defense witnesses, James Glasgow (hereinafter Glasgow), who was in custody on June 1, 1985 for drunken driving offenses, stated Officer Taguma had brutally assaulted him. Verna Inouye (hereinafter Inouye) said Officer Taguma, while a Kahului, Maui airport security guard, had screamed at and threatened her for a minor parking violation in November 1984. Physician Dr. Peter Halford (hereinafter Dr. Halford), who had treated Officer Taguma at Queen's Hospital, observed Officer Taguma was habitually angry, verbally abusive, and had mental problems. Gamit refused to testify. Judge Mossman, however, excluded the testimony of Officer Taguma's former employers, Thomas Higa (hereinafter Higa) of Longs Drugs store and Francis Kamakawiwaole (hereinafter Kamakawiwaole), security chief of the Sheraton-Maui Hotel. Both ex-employers would have stated that Officer Taguma had an attitude problem while Kamakawiwaole added that Officer Taguma was a pit bull. Judge Mossman also prevented bar hostess Maryanne M. (hereinafter Maryanne) from taking the stand. She would have testified that Officer Taguma, while a Maui County liquor control inspector, had sexually harassed her, grabbed her breasts, and threatened to use his official powers to have her fired unless she had sexual relations with him. Judge Mossman ruled such evidence irrelevant to Estrada's self-defense claims. Judge Mossman finally barred the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Ned Murphy (hereinafter Dr. Murphy) of Queen's Hospital. Dr. Murphy would have testified that Officer Taguma's bad behavior during recovery could not be explained by post-traumatic stress disorder (hereinafter PTSD) but was due to preexisting character problems. Judge Mossman held this conclusion inadmissible because Dr. Murphy could not state with reasonable medical certainty that Officer Taguma had any propensity for violence or aggression. On rebuttal, Dr. Hall testified that Officer Taguma's unruly actions at Queen's Hospital were caused by normal PTSD and not by any behavior problem. Other rebuttal witnesses also refuted the defense witnesses' testimony. The jury then retired for deliberations on February 4, 1986. During deliberations, the jury asked for the self-defense instructions and Officer Taguma's plus Dr. Halford's testimony on Officer Taguma's behavior at Queen's Hospital prior to release. As per his usual custom, Judge Mossman thereupon entered the jury room with a court reporter (to transcribe the proceedings) and a bailiff. Judge Mossman then read some, but not all, of the self-defense instructions, gave the jury a complete written set of all the jury instructions, and reread Officer Taguma's testimony, but not Dr. Halford's testimony. Judge Mossman entered the jury room three separate times. On February 7, 1986, Circuit Judge Richard R. Komo, substituting for Judge Mossman, accepted the jury's guilty verdict. State then moved for the imposition of life sentence without the possibility of parole pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (hereinafter HRS) § 706-606.1(1)(a) (1985). [4] State argued Estrada had been convicted for the attempted murder of a police officer who was acting in the line of duty. Bettencourt disagreed contending that, since State had never charged the HRS § 706-606.1(1)(a) violation in the complaint nor had the jury made the factual determination that Officer Taguma was acting in the performance of duty when shot, Estrada had no notice about the enhanced sentencing in contravention of due process. A sentencing hearing was set for April 3, 1986. At the sentencing hearing, Bettencourt additionally complained that, unknown to the defense, 1) the jury had received Estrada's prejudicial fingerprint exemplar of a prior unrelated burglary arrest (for which Estrada had been later acquitted); and 2) Judge Mossman had directly communicated with the jurors by improper means. [5] Judge Mossman then ruled that Bettencourt had known of yet had not objected to the practice of entering the jury room and HRS § 706-606.1(1)(a) applied. Estrada was consequently sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (though, after twenty years of imprisonment, commutation of the sentence to life with the possibility of parole could occur). This appeal followed.