Opinion ID: 2599148
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State improperly limited Okada's testimony before the grand jury

Text: The State contends the circuit court erred when it concluded the State withheld clearly exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. The State argues the testimony Glenn Okada was prevented from giving was not clearly exculpatory. We disagree. As noted previously, the perjury charge against Stone was premised upon testimony Stone gave before a prior grand jury about being contacted by Okada with regard to contacting Peters about the availability of an upper floor unit in Peters' building. Before the grand jury, the State questioned Glenn Okada, as follows: [Prosecutor]: ... Now, did you know that Henry Peters moved from apartment 202 to apartment 1203 some time in January 1996? [Okada]: I found out later that he had bought it. [Prosecutor]: Okay. Now, prior to Mr. Peters making a move, did you ever talk to him about him possibly making that move from 202 to 1203? [Okada]: Well, heyeah, he was interested in buying another unit, upper floor unit early on but, you know, I'm kind of semi-retired so I never really pursued it. I looked at that unit and I can't recall whether it was Brenda Bagano or Jeff Stone that told me about the unit `cause they know that I was buying some distressed properties, soin my pension planso I looked at the unit but the owner, the Japanese owner never lived in the unit and we had water damage on the top floor of all the units, including my unit, which the contractor and subcontractors had to repair, and that unit 1203, when I looked at it, it hadit had quite a bit of water damage so the wallpapers, the carpet which was a very expensive carpet that we had in the units itself waswashad to be all replaced and the unit, since it never had been lived in, the appliances, you know, had no warranty anymore, so [Prosecutor]: Okay, Mr. Okada, let me ask you just so that we're clear. The first time that you heard about Henry Peters moving from 12from 202 to 1203, how did you find out? [Okada]: Well, I think Jeff Stone may have mentioned that to me at one of our luncheons. [Prosecutor]: Okay. And as far as you ever talking to Mr. Peters about moving from 202 to 1203, did that ever happen? [Okada]: He may have mentioned that he was looking at the apartment and I may have mentioned to him that I had looked at the apartment and saw that it was, yeah, had a lot of damage in the apartment. [Prosecutor]: All right. Now, Mr. Okada, do you remember testifying before the grand jury on Octoberexcuse meon November 25, 1998? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: Okay. And that was similar to the kind of arrangement today, in other words, you were called in and you were sworn under oath? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: Okay. And questions were asked of you? [Okada]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: Now, do you remember being asked these questions and you giving these answers? The question started off, Just so that we're clear and there isn't any confusion, the only time that you apparently heard about Peters buying into apartment 1203 was when Jeffrey Stone may have told you about it? And your answer was, Yeah. [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: Wasn't that your answer? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: And wasn't that the truth at the time? [Okada]: Well, I hadI had kind of forgotten about the looking at the apartment before until I had spoken to Brenda Bagano later and she reminded me that I looked at the unit. [Prosecutor]: All right. But in terms of when it was that you first heard about Henry Peters moving into apartment 1203, that was when Jeffrey Stone told you about it, isn't that correct? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: And the next question was, And you had nothing to do about telling him about apartment 1203? And the answer was, No? [Okada]: Yeah, I had forgotten about me [Prosecutor]: The answer was, no? [Okada]: Yeah. Well, at thatI couldn't recall. [Prosecutor]: Mr. Okada, the answer was no? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: Okay. Thank you. . . . And just so that we're clear, when you testified before the grand jury previously on November 25 about that last question, and you had nothing to do about telling him about apartment 1203, you were telling the truth at that time? [Okada]: Yeah. I had forgotten about [Prosecutor]: Were you telling the truth at that time? [Okada]: Yeah. [Prosecutor]: Thank you.... At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Okada testified about being questioned before the grand jury: [Stone's counsel]: Now, Mr. Okada, you were called before the grand jury by [the prosecutor] on more than one occasion, correct? [Okada]: Yes. [Stone's counsel]: And the last time you were there, do you remember that you were trying to give an answer and you were interrupted? [Okada]: Yes. [Stone's counsel]: And it was [the prosecutor] who interrupted you? [Okada]: Yes. ... [Stone's counsel]: . . . Do you remember when he interrupted you? [Okada]: Yeah. [Stone's counsel]: And you were trying to go back and tell him something, is that correct? [Okada]: Yes. ... [Stone's counsel]: Now again, we started here you've told us [the prosecutor] interrupted you during the grand jury and you started to tell him something. What was it that you would have told him if he would have let you finish? [Okada]: That I had forgotten that I had looked at the unit. And what happened was that after I looked at the unit, I had lunch or I called Jeff Stone to tell him that I knew Henry was looking for an upper floor unit. From time to time, he and I would have lunch or meet Henry Peters; and he wanted to kind of get a pulse on the market from me, my perspective. So in one of my meetings with him, he indicated to me that he was interested in getting an upper floor unit because his unit was on the second floor. So I forgot that I had mentionedI had called Jeff or had lunch with him and mentioned to Jeff that Henry was looking for an upper floor unit and that if he would call Henry to see if he'd be interested in buying that upper floor unit. And I called Henry to tell him that, well, I thought the unit would sell for about sixty to maybe eighty thousand dollars less than the true market value because of the damage, the water damages to the apartment which were not repaired, because the owner never made any attempt to claim the damage. ... [Stone's counsel]: Now, is that what you would have testified to in substance if [the State's attorney] had not interrupted you? [Okada]: Yeah. [Stone's counsel]: And here now today under oath, just so we're clear, you were the one who called Jeff Stone and told Mr. Stone to call Mr. Peters about Unit 1203? [Okada]: Yeah. The State argues, in sum, the testimony that Okada was prevented from giving was not clearly exculpatory and the State had no obligation to present it. The State opines Okada's testimony was, at best, contradictory. The State argues the circuit court's finding that Okada was prevented from giving clearly exculpatory evidence was the kind of speculation that other courts have found to be undue interference with the grand jury process. We disagree with the State's arguments. This court has rejected an approach to claims of prosecutorial misconduct that would require the prosecutor to put before the grand jury any and all evidence [that] might tend to exculpate the defendant, Bell, 60 Haw. at 243, 589 P.2d at 519, or that would merely tend to negate guilt, Id. at 247, 589 P.2d at 521, and has concluded a court should dismiss an indictment only when the prosecutor failed to present evidence that clearly would have negated guilt or presented evidence that would undermine[ ] the authority of the grand jury to act at all[.] Id. at 247, 589 P.2d at 521 (quoting United States v. Mandel, 415 F.Supp. 1033, 1041-2 (D. Maryland 1976)). In this case, unlike Bell, one witness could provide the evidence concerning whether Stone lied when Stone testified that Okada contacted Stone and told Stone to contact Peters about the possibility of buying apartment 1203. The prosecutor put that witness, Okada, before the grand jury and asked him about when Okada heard about Peters moving and buying apartment 1203. The prosecutor did not allow Okada to testify about his role in making the availability of apartment 1203 known to Stone and Peters. Okada's testimony would have been the only direct testimony on the subject, it was not in contradiction of Okada's testimony about moving and buying, and it would clearly have negated guilt. The circuit court did not err when it dismissed the perjury count of the indictment.