Opinion ID: 1160484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: HRE 403 Balancing Test

Text: However, as previously stated, once the evidence of prior bad acts is determined to be relevant, the court must then balance the probative value of the relevant evidence against its prejudicial impact. Renon, 73 Haw. at 32, 828 P.2d at 1270 (citing HRE 403) (footnote omitted). With regard to whether Diana's testimony concerning the prior incidents was more probative than prejudicial, the trial court stated that, under the circumstances of a complaining witness who is recanting an original statement, the [c]ourt has made a determination that for these purposes, the probative value [of the prior instances of domestic discord] far outweighs any prejudice that may result as a consequence of introducing this evidence. We have stated that the determination of the admissibility of relevant evidence under HRE 403 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[.] Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai`i 14, 19, 897 P.2d 941, 946 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 315, 844 P.2d 670, 674 (1993) (quoting Kaeo v. Davis, 68 Haw. 447, 454-55, 719 P.2d 387, 392 (1986))). In arguing that evidence concerning his prior misconduct should have been precluded, Clark relies upon Castro. In Castro, a jury convicted the defendant of attempted murder and assault in the first degree. At trial, the court allowed the victim, the defendant's former girlfriend, to recount prior incidents where [the defendant] slapped her, punched her, threatened her while wielding a knife, held a gun to her head, raped her, and threatened her on the telephone[.] Id. at 641, 756 P.2d at 1039-40. The trial court concluded that such evidence was admissible, pursuant to Rule 404(b), stating that the evidence was relevant in the establishment of intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, and modus operandi and the probative value was much greater than the prejudicial impact. Id. at 644, 756 P.2d at 1041-42. On appeal, this court determined that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting inquiry into the prior acts of violence between the victim and the defendant because the record demonstrated that the defendant did not dispute that he stabbed his ex-girlfriend. In fact, defendant testified that he knew what was happening but just `couldn't stop.' Id. at 639, 756 P.2d at 1039. Because identity was not at issue, we deemed unpersuasive the trial court's suggestion that the evidence was relevant to prove preparation, plan, and modus operandi, recognizing that each of these Rule 404(b) acceptable purposes ultimately go to the element of identity. Although we recognize that identity is not an issue in this case, Castro nevertheless underscores the importance of the need factor [4] when weighing probative value versus prejudicial effect under Rule 404(b). A. Bowman, Hawai`i Rules of Evidence Manual 112 (1990). The Castro court's emphasis on the need for the evidence warrants the admission of the evidence at issue in the present case. Here, the incidents of Clark's prior violence and Diana's behavior were admissible to show the trier of fact Diana's relationship with Clark, where that relationship was offered to explain a central fact of consequence  Diana's recantation. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's determination that the probative value of the prior incidents of domestic violence far outweights any prejudice that may result as a consequence of introducing this evidence. We therefore hold that, where the complaining witness recants his or her pretrial accusation against the defendant, evidence of prior acts of domestic violence involving the complaining witness and the defendant is admissible, subject to the HRE 403 balancing test, to show the jury the context of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, where the relationship is offered as a possible explanation for the complaining witness's recantation at trial.