Opinion ID: 2582377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The HRE

Text: The ICA subsequently noted that the admission of Staggs' and Richards' out-of-court statements did not comply with the statutory provisions of the HRE. The ICA conceded that, had counsel objected to Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements, such objections could not have been validly denied. Nevertheless, the ICA concluded that the family court did not commit error when admitting the hearsay statements because it had no duty to exclude the evidence absent trial counsel's objection. The ICA emphasized that trial counsel's failure to object to Staggs' and Richards' hearsay statements presented an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which Fields could assert in a collateral post-conviction proceeding, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40.