Opinion ID: 4469365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Happy

Text: 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