Opinion ID: 2520968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of testimony regarding other guns

Text: [D]ifferent standards of review must be applied to trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. However, the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a judgment call on the part of the trial court. Kealoha v. County of Hawai'i, 74 Haw. 308, 319-20, 844 P.2d 670, 676 (1993). A trial court's determination of relevance pursuant to HRE Rule 401 (1993) [10] can produce only one correct result and is therefore reviewable under the right/wrong standard. Kealoha, 74 Haw. at 314-15, 844 P.2d at 674. However, the determination of the admissibility of relevant evidence under HRE 403 [(1993) [11] ] is eminently suited to the trial court's exercise of its discretion because it requires a `cost-benefit calculus' and a `delicate balance between probative value and prejudicial effect[.]' Id. at 315, 844 P.2d at 674 (citations omitted) (second alteration in original).