Opinion ID: 1191875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Character Evidence Regarding the Disposition to Exert Undue Influence.

Text: [D]ifferent standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 319, 844 P.2d 670, 676, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 847 P.2d 263 (1993). Where the evidentiary ruling at issue concerns admissibility based upon relevance, under . . . [HRE] Rules 401 and 402, the proper standard of appellate review is the right/wrong standard. . . . State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai`i 307, 314, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129 (1996) (some brackets in original and some added). Evidentiary decisions based on HRE Rule 403, which require a `judgment call' on the part of the trial court, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai`i 212, 215, 908 P.2d 1198, 1201 (1995). . . . HRE 404 represents a particularized application of the principle of HRE 403 ( see Commentary to HRE 404), and we will employ the same abuse of discretion standard of review. State v. Alston, 75 Haw. 517, 538, 865 P.2d 157, 168 (1994) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). . . . State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 11, 928 P.2d 843, 853 (1996) (brackets in original) (some citations omitted).
The general rule is that [e]vidence which tends to prove or disprove the subordination of the will of [the] testator to others must, except in extreme cases, take a very wide range[.] 3 Page on the Law of Wills § 29.78, at 577 (William J. Bowe and Douglas H. Parker, eds., 1961); see also 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.77, at 131 (Supp. 1998). In Estate of Afong, 26 Haw. at 154, this court stated that: In cases involving the contest of wills upon the ground of undue influence the courts generally permit an unusually wide range of inquiry. . . . In this case [the trial court] permitted the presentation to the jury [to reflect] as accurately as possible the characters involved in the family tragedy, their relations to each other and the ultimate result. (Brackets added.) However, [t]here is no doubt . . . that the undue influence must be proved to have operated as a present constraint at the very time of making the will [.] . . . And yet direct evidence of such influence at the precise time of execution is not indispensable. That may be shown by circumstantial evidence. . . but only in so far as it tends to show that undue influence was in fact operative at the time of the execution. . . . Will of Notley, 15 Haw. at 440-41 (emphases added); see also Estate of Heeb, 26 Haw. at 538. From an evidentiary standpoint, character evidence of disposition to exert undue influence at the time of the will's execution may be admissible under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 404(b), which provides in pertinent part: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible where such evidence is probative of any other fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, or absence of mistake or accident. Citing the Advisory Committee of the federal rules of evidence, the commentary to HRE Rule 404 further states that this rule does not deal with the situation where the character of the person is itself an element of a claim or defense. . . . See also 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence & 404[03], at 404-17 (1991). Indeed, HRE Rule 405 provides: Methods of proving character. (a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. (b) Specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of the person's conduct. (Emphasis added.) Thus, character evidence of the disposition to exert undue influence over the testator or testatrix at the time of a will's execution may be substantively admissible. The circuit court, however, must make a threshold determination under HRE Rule 402 [13] regarding whether the proffered evidence is indeed relevant to one's disposition to exert undue influence over the testator or testatrix at the time of the execution of the will. Then, the circuit court must determine whether the proffered evidence, although relevant, should be excluded under HRE Rule 403, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Accordingly, the great latitude afforded in the introduction of evidence in a case of this kind is qualified. Under Hawai`i law, character evidence regarding one's disposition to exert undue influence is admissible in a will contest where the contestant has alleged undue influence, only insofar as it tends to show that undue influence was in fact operative at the time of the will's execution, i.e., that undue influence was exerted over the testator/testatrix at the execution of and resulted in the challenged will.
In this regard, Page on Wills states: If a witness first testifies to facts which tend to show undue influence, is it proper to ask him for his opinion as to whether or not testator was induced to make his will by the exercise of undue influence? Upon this question the courts have divided. Some courts have held that, under such circumstances, the witness may give his opinion. Other courts have held that the witness cannot give his opinion. This result has been reached, in part at least, on the theory that this question is for the jury, and that such a question asks the witness, in effect, to tell the jury what verdict he thinks they should render. Even if the witness may give his opinion, it must be a reasonably clear and definite one as to the existence and effect of undue influence. The opinion of a witness as to the existence of undue influence is inadmissible unless he first states the facts upon which he bases such opinion. . . . The opinion of the witness is inadmissible if relating to facts so remote from the execution of the will as to have no value as evidence of undue influence at the time of such execution. 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.123, at 666-67 (footnotes omitted). Page on Wills also states that evidence of the conduct of beneficiaries and heirs is admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the existence of undue influence. Evidence . . . that a beneficiary . . . was a man of good character . . . is admissible. If it is found that the beneficiary burned letters and papers which had belonged to the testator, the jury may infer that such letters and papers contained evidence which would have been unfavorable to the beneficiary. Evidence that the beneficiary removed papers from testator's safety deposit box soon after testator's death is admissible. Such evidence is not admissible if it does not tend to prove or disprove undue influence. Evidence as to the general conduct of the person by whom it is alleged that undue influence was exerted, such as the fact that such a person, who was a lawyer, had been guilty of professional misconduct toward other clients, or the fact that one of the beneficiaries had consulted with testator's attorney a considerable period of time before the will was executed, or that one of the beneficiaries had not employed counsel to represent him at contest, or that certain persons were present at the probate of the will, or that the beneficiaries were members of a certain society, or that the beneficiaries had been guilty of misstatements of fact which did not involve the interest of the testator; or that the person who was claimed to have exerted undue influence was insane, or that the woman, by whom undue influence is alleged to have been exerted on her daughter-in-law to procure a will in favor of the latter's husband, was stingy, or that the beneficiary had sought to study hypnotism so as to hypnotize testator and thus to secure a will in his favor, in the absence of evidence tending to show that he actually studied hypnotism or made use thereof, or that the husband of testatrix was a drunkard, is inadmissible. 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.196, at 681-82 (emphases added). Accordingly, character evidence in the form of lay opinion testimony and specific instances of conduct is admissible if it tends to prove the exertion of undue influence at the time of the will's execution.