Opinion ID: 1182165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whitey's Exclusion

Text: The defense failed to list Whitey on its pretrial witness list, but offered to call him to testify on the fourth day of trial regarding his name and any nicknames that he may have had, and possibly his general appearance back in May and June of 1986. Because Whitey had been in court briefly during Okata's testimony on cross-examination, the prosecution objected based on a claimed violation of the witness exclusion rule (rule), [2] and the court excluded Whitey. We have said that where the rule has been invoked and clearly violated, the appropriate sanction is discretionary with the court. State v. Moriwaki, 71 Haw. 347, 353, 791 P.2d 392, 395 (1990). The court's discretion is limited in a criminal case if the rule has been violated by a defense witness. Because of sixth amendment concerns and the dictates of article I, § 14 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, we have held it to be error for a trial court to refuse to permit a defense witness to testify as a penalty for violating the rule. State v. Leong, 51 Haw. 581, 583-86, 465 P.2d 560, 562-63 (1970). On the first day of trial, defense counsel agreed to the invocation of the rule by the court. Nevertheless, on the second day of trial, with Okata on the witness stand and Whitey present in the gallery, defense counsel asked Okata, do you recognize anyone in the courtroom, in the gallery, this morning? She responded in the negative. Whitey was then signalled out of the courtroom. When Whitey was later offered as a defense witness, the court determined that his brief attendance during the question posed to Okata constituted a violation of the rule and Whitey was excluded. The purpose of the rule is to codify the long established practice of sequestering witnesses to discourage or expose fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. Bloudell v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 4 Haw. App. 498, 504, 669 P.2d 163, 169 (1983); see also State v. Elmaleh, 7 Haw.App. 488, 492, 782 P.2d 886, 889, cert. denied, 70 Haw. 666, 796 P.2d 502 (1989). We fail to see how Whitey's presence in the courtroom for the identification question violated the rule. While he was there he did not observe or hear anything which would be relevant or material to the testimony he would later have given. To hold otherwise would be to prohibit gallery identifications of subsequent trial witnesses altogether. [3] We hesitate to do so and conclude that the lower court erred by excluding Whitey as a rule sanction. However, given defense counsel's offer of proof, Whitey's exclusion was proper on a separate basis. According to counsel, Whitey would be called as a witness to testify to his identification, nicknames, and general appearance in May and June 1986. Because Okata failed to identify Whitey from the gallery, it would follow that Okata's testimony about sitting with defendant and his son in the Bronco while they snorted cocaine on June 1, 1986 would lack credibility. However, before Whitey's offer of proof would become relevant to the issue of Okata's credibility, there would have to be sufficient foundational proof that Whitey was the same son who participated in the events of June 7, 1986. Okata never stated that she was with Defendant's son Whitey on the date in question. See infra note 1. The offer of proof does not indicate that Whitey would testify to that effect either. Because the defense failed to lay the proper foundation for Whitey's testimony, we conclude that the offer of proof concerning him was not probative of any fact in issue at trial and thus constituted irrelevant, inadmissible evidence. [4] See Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) 402. As we stated in State v. Mitake, 64 Haw. 217, 225, 638 P.2d 324, 330 (1981): We are mindful of the fact that the right to compulsory process is of paramount importance in assuring a defendant the right to a meaningful defense and a fair trial. However, we are also aware that this right is not without just limitations. One such limitation is that a defendant is only afforded the right to compel attendance and testimony of witnesses who can give relevant and beneficial testimony for the defense. Because the trial court correctly excluded Whitey, albeit for the wrong reasons, we must affirm the result. See Shea v. City & County, 67 Haw. 499, 507, 692 P.2d 1158, 1165 (1985).