Opinion ID: 2525735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Information Provided to Corder in Discovery Was Sufficient to Prepare Him for Trial and to Prevent Surprise.

Text: Count II and Count III of the Complaint each listed the protective order alleged to have been violated, the police report underlying the alleged offense, the approximate date of the offense, and the statutes under which Corder was charged. Corder does not deny that the State provided him with copies of the EOP and HPD Report Nos. 07-021001, underlying Count II, and 07-026265, underlying Count III, in discovery. Rather, Corder argues that the information provided to him in discovery was insufficient to apprise him of the nature of the charged offenses because it does not level specific charges that say what the violation is and who the victim is. HPD Report No. 07-021001, which underlies Count II of the Complaint, contains the following information: SCENE/TIME ELEMENT: The scene of the incident was fronting the residence of the complainant, which is located at [address omitted]. The incident occurred on 01-15-07, at about 1845 hours. COMPLAINANT STATEMENT: CORDER, Allison (40) [Allison] CORDER stated that as she was coming home in her vehicle she had turned onto Anania Drive from Lanikuhana Avenue. As [Allison] CORDER turned the corner she observed her ex husband Lawrence CORDER. Lawrence was riding his bicycle from Anania Drive and turned onto Lanikuhana Avenue heading up towards the Wal-mart area. [Allison] CORDER relayed that she has a Protective Order against Lawrence. For further facts and circumstances refer to HPD-252. . . . PROTECTIVE ORDER/PROOF OF SERVICE: A copy of the Protective Order was reviewed by [Officer Kyle Echiberi] and as stated that the defendant, CORDER, Lawrence is prohibited from coming or passing within 100 yards of any place of employment or where Plaintiff, CORDER, Allison lives, as stated on page #2, section B, subsection 4. Service was made on 08-02-06, at about 1214 hours, and valid until 08-10-11. For further information refer to attached copy of the Protective Order and Proof of Service. The police report also includes a statement by Allison Corder that, along with the above information, states she saw Lawrence Corder in close proximity to her home and that when she arrived home she found the security screen on her front door ajar. HPD Report No. 07-026265, which underlies Count III of the Complaint, contains the following information: SCENE: Violation took place in the rear park area of Mililani Waena School grassy area between the school and Recreation Center 1. TIME ELEMENT: 01-19-07 / 1400 hours. COMPLAINANTS STATEMENT: On 01-19-07 at about 1500 hours [Officer Jayme Daszek] met with complainant identified as [minor son of Lawrence Corder] hereinafter referred to as [minor 1], who related that his father Lawrence CORDER hereinafter referred to as Lawrence violated a[sic] Extended Order for Protection. [Minor 1] related that on 01-19-07 at about 1400 hours, he was waiting in the above area for his sister [minor 2]. Upon waiting there [minor 1] observed his father Lawrence less about [sic] 15 ft. away from him on a bike facing his direction. [Minor 1] told his father that he needed to get away from him referring to the court order. Lawrence stated that he was not violating the court order and that he was a[sic] 100 yards away as he spoke in a normal tone of voice. [Minor 1] observed his father later ride away but stayed in the area. [Minor 1] stated that his sister came to him and [minor 1] told her to go and tell grandpa that Lawrence was in the area. [Minor 1] then stated that he observed his father go around the townhouses and ride towards the direction of his sister. [Minor 1] stated that he ran after him and told him to leave immediately. Lawrence said it doesn't even matter anyways because I will get locked up on Monday. [Minor 1] then related that he used a friends [sic] cell phone to call his grandpa and uncle. Upon calling he observed his father ride off as he yelled something as he left the area. For facts refer to HPD-252. Mother Allison CORDER who is the petitioner was present during the interview and written statement. ORDER PREUSED [sic]/VIOLATION: [Officer Daszek] looked over the copy provided by [minor 1's] mother who was present for the interview. Upon reading the order [Officer Daszek] determined that the order was valid until August 10, 2011 and that Lawrence CORDER violated section 6 of the order by coming within a[sic] 100 ft. of both [minor 1] and [minor 2]. For facts refer to a copy of the order. This police report also contains a statement by minor 1 describing the above incident. The police reports, in conjunction with the Complaint, gave Corder precisely the information he would need to prepare for trial; namely the complainant, the time and location of the incident, and the conduct alleged to have violated the EOP. In his Response, Corder's synopsis of the evidence adduced at trial by the State is substantially similar to the information contained in the police reports. In State v. Reed , we affirmed the trial court's denial of a bill of particulars where defendant was provided with sufficient notice of the charges against him. Reed, 77 Hawai`i at 78, 881 P.2d at 1224. In that case, the defendant claimed he was entitled to a bill of particulars because the complaint filed against him failed to provide adequate notice of the specific criminal acts with which he was charged. Id. We held that defendant's arguments fell flat in light of the fact that before trial defendant received copies of the complaint, the transcript of the preliminary hearing, and police reports, which were sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare for trial and to avoid prejudicial surprise. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, the Family Court need not order the State to provide a bill of particulars detailing information that has been provided in some other satisfactory form. The trial court was within its discretion to find that the Complaint, the EOP and the police reports were sufficient to apprise Corder of the charges against him. Corder also argues that in its Application, the State, for the first time, contends that the police reports very specifically define the charges against Corder. Corder misstates the State's position. In its Application, the State does not argue that the specific EOP sections allegedly violated are limited to those listed in the police reports. Rather, the State argues that the police reports provide sufficient information to enable Corder to prepare for trial. This is the same argument the State made before the Family Court and ICA.