Opinion ID: 4443342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Hose’s Testimony

Text: Officer Hose testified that on January 24, 2015, at around 12:38 p.m., he responded to a “suspicious circumstances type case” at the apartment building. Upon his arrival, he noticed that a window screen of a ground-floor, corner apartment had been cut. He contacted the owner of the apartment, who arrived 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI̒I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  around 1:00 p.m. The owner looked in the apartment and identified missing items. Officer Hose left the apartment, but was called back thirty minutes later to investigate a situation involving “a nude male in the laundry room.” When he returned, Officer Abe Kamanao (“Officer Kamanao”) was in the laundry room with the man, whom Officer Hose identified in court as Kaneaiakala. The officers found a long-sleeved, light-blue collared shirt and a pair of black shorts near Kaneaiakala and instructed Kaneaiakala to put on the shorts. Officer Hose observed that several items the apartment owner reported missing were in the laundry room, including the watch Kaneaiakala was wearing. Officer Hose then called Laraway, who said she was returning to the apartment building soon. When she returned, he asked her if she would be able to identify the man she saw at the window and whether she would “be willing to participate in a field show-up.” To conduct the show-up, Officer Hose had Kaneaiakala stand next to a parked police car on the street outside the apartment building. He had Laraway stand “no more than about 40 feet” away from Kaneaiakala, from where she had a clear, unobstructed view of Kaneaiakala. Laraway calmly and quickly identified Kaneaiakala as the man she saw at the window. Officer Hose testified that Laraway was never given any 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI̒I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  instructions and was never told that the person she viewed may or may not be a suspect. He denied telling Laraway that Kaneaiakala was the man she had seen earlier. He admitted that Laraway did not record her description of the man at the window until after the show-up. During Officer Hose’s cross-examination, the State stipulated that the show-up was impermissibly suggestive. c. The Circuit Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Motion to Suppress On October 27, 2015, the circuit court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Kaneaiakala’s motion to suppress. The court’s findings of fact were based largely on Laraway’s testimony of the events that occurred on January 24, 2015. The findings of fact included, among other things, that Laraway (1) participated in a field show-up, (2) recognized Kaneaiakala based on his build, body shape, complexion, and hair, and (3) told the officers she was “almost positive” that Kaneaiakala was the man she saw at the window. Based on those findings, the circuit court concluded that: (1) although the show-up procedure was impermissibly suggestive, (2) Laraway’s identification of Kaneaiakala was nonetheless admissible because the totality of the circumstances, including the five Biggers factors, indicated the identification was reliable. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI̒I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  The case then proceeded to jury trial. 2. Jury Trial Kaneaiakala’s jury trial was held from April 18, 2016 to April 20, 2016. The State called four witnesses: Laraway, Officer Hose, Kip Praissman (“Praissman”), and Officer Kamanao. Kaneaiakala did not present any witnesses. Laraway’s testimony was substantially similar to her testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. At trial, she added that she lived with her husband and son at the 2904 Date Street apartment building on January 24, 2015, and that she had left their apartment that day with her twelve-year-old son to go to her son’s soccer game at Kapiolani Park. Officer Hose’s testimony was substantially similar to his testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Praissman, a resident of the ground-floor apartment that was broken into, testified in pertinent part as follows. He had locked the apartment when he left it the morning of January 24, 2015. He returned around 1:00 p.m. after receiving a call from HPD that his apartment had been burglarized and met with HPD officers to identify what items were missing from the apartment and to provide a statement. A short time after the officers left, Praissman discovered a naked man standing in the laundry room of the apartment building and wearing Praissman’s watch. Praissman immediately 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI̒I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  called the police. Praissman later identified other items the officers found in the laundry room with the man as items missing from his apartment. At trial, Praissman identified the man he saw in the laundry room as Kaneaiakala. Officer Kamanao testified that on January 24, 2015, he had responded to a call regarding an attempted burglary at the apartment with Officer Hose and returned that same day in response to a call regarding a naked man in the building’s laundry room. Kamanao testified that, along with clothing and some of Praissman’s missing items, the officers also found a kitchen mitt, pair of scissors, pair of pliers, knife, dental floss, and a screwdriver on the washing machine near Kaneaiakala. At trial, Officer Kamanao identified Kaneaiakala as the man he saw in the laundry room. The recording of Laraway’s phone call to 911 on the day of the incident was also introduced and played for the jury. The jury found Kaneaiakala guilty as charged of one count of Burglary in the First Degree in violation of HRS § 708810(1)(c). On September 20, 2016, the circuit court entered a Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (“circuit court judgment”) sentencing Kaneaiakala to a ten-year term of imprisonment with a mandatory minimum sentence of three years and four months as a repeat offender. Kaneaiakala timely appealed from the circuit court judgment to the ICA. 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI̒I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER