Opinion ID: 4542551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense’s Case at Trial

Text: Kato called David Miller as a witness. Although all of Miller’s testimony was later stricken, as explained below, Miller testified that he met the CW in March or April 2013. Initially they were just friends but it developed into something more serious, Miller said. Miller testified that in August 2013, the CW had become his girlfriend and moved into his apartment. She had to move out on September 1, 2013, Miller 5 The CW testified that she had not received any messages from Akanishi since the incident. Reyn Yoshinaga, a special agent with Homeland Security, testified that no one with the name Ai Akanishi entered the U.S. starting from the late 1990s. 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER explained, and their relationship lasted until about mid-October 2013. The defense asked Miller if he was aware the CW was dating other men while he was dating her; the State objected as to relevance and its objection was sustained. The State similarly objected to the defense’s next question, asking Miller if he had seen the CW with other men, and again the objection was sustained on relevancy grounds. Defense counsel requested a bench conference to explain the relevance of his line of questioning. In the bench conference, defense counsel explained that the defense was attempting to show that Kato did not have a motive to stab the CW whereas Miller did. Counsel argued that Miller wanted to marry the CW and thus was angry and upset with the CW for dating other men and leaving him, which resulted in his stabbing her. The State responded that Kato could not bring up evidence of Miller’s motive under State v. Rabellizsa, 79 Hawaiʻi 347, 903 P.2d 43 (1995). Counsel maintained that there was a sufficient nexus under Rabellizsa because Miller was angry and upset at the CW; the CW was saying that she loved Miller, missed him, and wanted to see him, and “then she just blows him off.” And not only was Miller upset, counsel explained, but he went through the CW’s phone, and he “saw these males’ names.” The court asked defense counsel if Miller “said I’m going to 11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER kill [the CW]” and when counsel said that he had not, the court stated “Rabellizsa, no nexus.” Following the bench conference, the defense attempted to ask Miller if he had seen the CW with other men, prompting Miller to request a break and the court to excuse the jury and begin another bench conference. The court returned to the Rabellizsa issue. The court evaluated some of the evidence to determine if there was a nexus, noting that “nobody saw [Miller] near the scene,” and “nobody says it was a Caucasian.” Defense counsel responded that the CW had identified her assailant as a Caucasian to two different police officers. The court replied, “but there’s testimony that it’s an Asian person.” The court then stated that Miller was 5’10” while testimony indicated that the person who assaulted the CW was 5’5” to 5’7”. Defense counsel stated that Miller’s build was similar to the person who stabbed the CW, and that the estimates of the witnesses varied from perception of height. The court also stated that Miller testified that he was not bothered now that the CW was going out with other men. Defense counsel again noted that Miller went through the CW’s cell phone and saw numerous phone numbers of males and was unhappy about her relationships with other men. Additionally, counsel stated, on October 23, 2013, Miller told Kato that the CW was having sex with other men. 12 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Having “heard the evidence,” the court held that the defense “had to have some nexus between the other guy and the crime,” and that the court didn’t “see any here.” The court then turned to Fifth Amendment issues with regard to Miller’s testimony. Prior to trial, Kato had filed a notice of intent (Kato’s Motion in Limine #1) to introduce evidence that Miller had physically abused Kato in May 2013, that Miller had been arrested on June 24, 2013, for abuse of a family or household member based on a different incident with Kato,6 and that Miller had subsequently forced Kato to write a letter recanting her abuse allegations. Counsel explained that the defense would elicit testimony that in September 2013, Miller had told Kato that she ruined his life and that Miller had threatened to get revenge on her for having him arrested for the abuse offense. The defense’s theory was that David Miller set Kato up and was the person who stabbed Kato or arranged it, defense counsel explained to the court. 6 Miller was subsequently prosecuted for harassment, but the case was dismissed without prejudice because of the prosecution’s failure to secure a Japanese interpreter for Kato and for not providing the defense with a 911 tape relating to the offense. 13 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER During a pretrial Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 104 hearing,7 Kato had called Miller to ask him questions regarding (1) the evidence proffered in her Motion in Limine #1, (2) questions relating to his relationships with Kato and the CW, (3) questions relating to his Japanese proficiency, and (4) questions relating to his motive to want to stab the CW. Before Miller testified, the defense argued that Miller should not be allowed to take the Fifth Amendment on those questions because, under State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawaiʻi 307, 909 P.2d 1122 (1996), the chance of his prosecution for harassment, violations of a temporary restraining order (TRO),8 or the CW’s stabbing was “slim to none.” The court did not issue a ruling, and Miller was called to testify. Miller, with the assistance of court-appointed Fifth Amendment counsel, exercised his Fifth Amendment rights in response to defense counsel’s questions as to multiple matters. The court ruled that Miller had properly asserted his Fifth 7 HRE Rule 104(a) (1993) provides, in relevant part: Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsection (b). In making its determination the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. 8 A TRO had been issued against Miller, effective June 26, 2013, to December 25, 2013, that prohibited any contact between Miller and Kato, including texts, contact, and phone conversations. It was later amended to allow them to be at the temple at the same time. 14 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Amendment privilege on questions regarding (1) June 24, 2013, the date of his arrest for abuse of family or household member; (2) any contact between himself and Kato from June 26, 2013, to December 23, 2013, as that could expose him to liability for violating the TRO; (3) and questions regarding his conversations with the CW that involved Kato. At this hearing, Miller answered questions relating to his feelings towards the CW before and after their relationship ended,9 his feelings about the CW dating other men,10 and the CW’s two-day stay with Kato.11 Miller also testified that he carries a “quick release” knife with a four-inch blade for work. But at trial, after Kato attempted to ask Miller if he had seen the CW with other men, Miller’s court-appointed Fifth Amendment lawyer12 informed the court that counsel would be instructing Miller, for the first time, to exercise his Fifth 9 Specifically, Miller testified that he fell in love with the CW and hoped to marry her, although he never communicated this to the CW. Miller also testified that the CW told him that she loved him and would see him soon, before she stopped contacting him. Miller explained that he was not angry at the CW for ending their relationship. 10 Miller said that he wasn’t sure if the CW was seeing other men but that he never saw her with other men. Miller also explained that he was not upset about the CW dating men before him. 11 Miller stated that he told the CW not to tell Kato that he and the CW were in a relationship. Miller also explained that the CW told him that she never told Kato she was in a relationship with Miller. 12 Miller’s court-appointed counsel at the pretrial hearing and at trial was the Office of the Public Defender, although different attorneys appeared on his behalf at the two proceedings. 15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Amendment rights to any questions that would “arguably give [Miller] a motive to assault [the CW].” The court then held another HRE Rule 104 hearing during a trial recess because of Miller’s intention to exercise the Fifth Amendment to questions he had answered at the pretrial HRE Rule 104 hearing. Kato argued that Miller should be forced to testify because he had already answered these questions with counsel present and because, under Kupihea, the chance of Miller’s prosecution for the stabbing of the CW was remote. At the trial HRE Rule 104 hearing, the court overruled Kato’s objections and allowed Miller to invoke the Fifth Amendment on (1) “motive related questions” because Kato was trying to blame Miller for the crime, (2) communications he had with Kato because “it’s going to lead directly to [Miller] fixed [the stabbing] up, allegedly,” and (3) communications with the CW after she moved out because it would “infer that he had communications with [the CW] up to the 24th” of October, which could furnish a link. The court further permitted Miller to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights on questions he had previously answered, including questions relating to his feelings towards the CW before and after their relationship ended, Miller’s feelings about the CW dating other men, the CW’s two-day stay with Kato, and whether he owned a knife. The court explained its ruling by noting that Kato was trying to blame 16 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Miller for the stabbing, and thus any questions about his motive could implicate him. The court did not rule on defense’s contention that Miller had waived his Fifth Amendment privilege by answering those questions at the pretrial Rule 104 hearing with appointed counsel present, instead remarking, “when there’s a change of lawyer, are you stuck with your old assertions of the Fifth, or are you not? I don’t know.” In light of the court’s ruling, defense counsel argued that much of the information that would be excluded by Miller asserting his Fifth Amendment privileges could not come out through Kato’s testimony because it would be excluded as hearsay statements.13 Kato’s right to a fair trial would be violated unless Miller was considered unavailable so that his statements could come in under HRE Rule 804, defense counsel maintained. The court reaffirmed its rulings on Miller’s Fifth Amendment privileges but does not appear to have ruled on Kato’s argument that eliciting the evidence through Kato would not be viable. After the court’s rulings to essentially preclude all testimony from Miller related to the incident, his prior relations with Kato, and his relationship with the CW, the court convened the jury, and struck all of Miller’s trial testimony 13 Kato originally informed the court that she would testify. The court, in rendering its ruling allowing Miller to exercise the Fifth Amendment, stated its assumption that Kato would be able to testify as to what Miller had told her. 17 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER with Kato’s consent.14 Kato exercised her right to remain silent and did not testify; according to defense counsel, Kato made this decision because of the court rulings regarding Miller’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights. B. Jury Instructions and Verdict During the settling of jury instructions, the court ruled that, under Rabellizsa, Kato could not argue that Miller stabbed the CW, but Kato could argue that someone besides her was the person who stabbed the CW. The court explained that there was nothing tying Miller to the scene nor did Miller match the physical description of the assailant provided by witnesses. In her closing argument, Kato referenced the fact that the CW and witnesses identified a male suspect, but, complying with the court’s ruling, Kato did not argue that it was Miller. The court instructed the jury on the included offenses of attempted murder in the second degree, including reckless endangering in the second degree. The jury was not instructed on accomplice liability nor did the parties raise an accomplice liability theory in their closing arguments.15 14 At the close of the State’s case, Kato moved for a judgment of acquittal; that motion was denied. 15 During the discussion on the defense motion for judgment of acquittal, the court asked if accomplice liability was “involved here.” The State responded that “it could be” and defense counsel answered “I mean, theoretically. But even that is a stretch. . . . So either [Kato’s] the stabber, or she’s not. She’s an accomplice, or not.” 18 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER During jury deliberations, the jury asked the court if it could “consider whether someone else aided [Kato]?” In response, the court told the jury, “During this trial, you received all of the evidence which you may consider to decide this case. You must follow all of the court’s instructions to you.” The jury communicated with the court again, stating, After deliberating yesterday afternoon and all morning, we are still hung almost 50/50. One major point of confusion is how we interpret the legalese of the charge itself on page 23 of our instruction [for attempted murder in the second degree]. Some of us feel that [Kato] is not guilty because there is reasonable doubt whether [Kato] actually held the knife and stabbed [the CW]. Others feel that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Kato] took actions to lead [the CW] to Kaunaoa St. where someone was waiting to stab [the CW]. Our question is, in layman’s terms, does the charge include [Kato] intentionally conspiring to have [the CW] stabbed without actually being the stabber? In response to the jury’s second question, the court responded “No.” The jury found Kato guilty of reckless endangering in the second degree.16 Kato was sentenced to one year incarceration with credit for time served, with the jail sentence stayed pending appeal. Kato timely appealed from the circuit court’s March 11, 2015 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (judgment) to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). 16 HRS § 707-714(1)(a) (Supp. 2012) provides as follows: “A person commits the offense of reckless endangering in the second degree if the person . . . [e]ngages in conduct that recklessly places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury[.]” 19 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER