Opinion ID: 1155642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State's retention of Dr. Hall as a witness

Text: Dr. Hall was appointed by the court pursuant to HRS § 704-404(2) (1985) [5] and retained by the State to testify on the issue of whether Appellant was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the incident. Appellant argues that this situation created a conflict of interest and diminished her statutory right to a panel of neutral court examiners. She further argues that Dr. Hall could not have been a neutral witness while being paid by the State. However, Appellant cites no cases to support her contention. The State argues that Dr. Hall's examination of Appellant as a member of the panel did not create any conflict of interest, because the doctor testified that he was paid by the State for his time and not his conclusions. The State also submits that Dr. Hall was retained by the Prosecutor's Office only for the purpose of examining the Appellant on the issue of whether she acted under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Appellant's argument is without merit. Appellant was entitled to cross-examine Dr. Hall concerning any alleged conflict of interest problems but failed to raise this issue at trial. Furthermore, HRS § 704-410(1) (1985) (emphasis added) provides that: At the hearing pursuant to section 704-405 or upon trial, the examiners who reported pursuant to section 704-404 may be called as witnesses by the prosecution, the defendant, or the court. If the issue is being tried before a jury, the jury may be informed that the examiners or any of them were designated by the court.... It is also implicit from the plain language of HRS § 704-410(3) (1985) [6] that an examiner may later testify on behalf of one party on the issue of the defendant's responsibility for the conduct or state of mind comprising the elements of the alleged offense without creating a conflict of interest.