Opinion ID: 1124343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution's Cross-Appeal

Text: Our disposition of Defendant's appeal based on Garringer means that the ultimate outcome of this case depends on the decision the Prosecution makes within thirty days. The choice the Prosecution makes will also have an impact on the issues raised in the Prosecution's cross-appeal. On the one hand, if the Prosecution consents to resentencing without the mandatory minimum terms and the convictions are affirmed, then the issues raised in the cross-appeal become moot. See State v. Okuda, 71 Haw. 434, 456, 795 P.2d 1, 13 (dismissing the prosecution's cross-appeal because the issues were rendered moot by the court's decision not to remand for retrial), reconsideration denied, 71 Haw. 665, 833 P.2d 900 (1990). If the convictions are affirmed, the Prosecution will have received its requested remedyconviction of the Defendant. Because there would no longer be an outstanding remedy, the entire cross-appeal would be moot. See AIG Hawai`i Ins. Co., Inc. v. Bateman, 82 Hawai`i 453, 458-59, 923 P.2d 395, 400-01 (1996). On the other hand, if the Prosecution does not consent to resentencing and the convictions are vacated, the Prosecution would no longer have its remedy. The case would then have to be retried and the remedyconviction would not have been achieved. Thus, the issues in the cross-appeal would not be moot. Because we are following the procedure described in Garringer, we have no way of knowing, at this point, whether the convictions will be affirmed or vacated. Consequently, we are forced to address the issues in the cross-appeal due to the possibility that the Prosecution will refuse consent and choose to retry Defendant. However, before addressing the merits of each issue in the cross-appeal, we must first examine the threshold question of whether the Prosecution has the statutory right to appeal the issues raised. The right of appeal in a criminal case is purely statutory and exists only when given by some constitutional or statutory provision. State v. Wells, 78 Hawai`i 373, 376, 894 P.2d 70, 73, reconsideration denied, 78 Hawai`i 474, 896 P.2d 930 (1995). The Prosecution's right of appeal in criminal cases is limited to those instances set forth in HRS § 641-13[.] Id. Subsection (5) of that statute provides that the Prosecution may appeal [f]rom a ruling on a question of law adverse to the State where the defendant is convicted and appeals from the judgment. HRS § 641-13(5) (1993). Thus, a preliminary question that must be addressed is whether the four issues raised in the cross-appeal involve questions of law. Defendant argues that the term question of law must be narrowly interpreted as applying only to issues subject to a de novo or right/wrong standard of review. The Prosecution, however, argues in favor of a broader interpretation not limited by the standard of review. In our view, the language of the statute is ambiguous; the term question of law can legitimately be read narrowly or broadly. Therefore, it is subject to two possible meanings and is ambiguous. See State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 19, 904 P.2d 893, 904 (1995) ([A] statute is ambiguous if it is `capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed people in two or more different senses.'). When a statute is ambiguous, we may resort to legislative history as an interpretive tool. Id. The Senate Judiciary Committee report on the original version of HRS § 641-13, see 1911 Haw. Sess. L. Act 40, § 1 at 37, states: There are many good reasons why a decision in favor of a defendant in a criminal case upon a question of fact, or on the guilt or innocence of the defendant should not be reviewed, but there is no good reason why a person charged with crime should be permitted to escape simply because the trial judge has erred on a pure question of law. Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 86, in 1911 Senate Journal, at 309-10. See also Wells, 78 Hawai`i at 377, 894 P.2d at 74. Although this committee report discusses questions of fact and questions of law, it does not expressly refer to standards of review, such as the clearly erroneous standard or the de novo standard. Moreover, it does not even implicitly consider the abuse of discretion standard or the no substantial evidence standard. Thus, we believe that the legislature was not specifically referring to standards of review when it used the term question of law in HRS § 641-13. On the contrary, we believe that the legislature was using the term in another, less technical, sense. In State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 849 P.2d 58 (1993), we noted the following: That the jury is to pass upon the facts and the [c]ourt upon the law[] is a principle which lies at the foundation of jury trial in every country blessed with [that] institution[.] Lewis v. Davis, 1 Haw. 248, 249 (1854). Correlatively, the admissibility of evidence is a question of law for the trial judge to determine. Territory v. Buick, 27 Haw. 28, 52 (1923); see also HRE 104(a) (1985) (Preliminary questions concerning... the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court). On the other hand, [t]he jury, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses [and] the weight of the evidence. State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636, 637-38, 633 P.2d 1115, 1117 (1981) (citations omitted); State v. Summers, 62 Haw. 325, 332, 614 P.2d 925, 930 (1980) (citations omitted). Id. at 515-16, 849 P.2d at 75 (alterations in original)(footnote omitted). Thus, in Kelekolio, we discussed issues of law and fact in relation to the relative roles of judge and jury. Issues involving law, such as the admissibility of evidence, are decided by the judge; while issues involving fact, such as the credibility of witnesses, the weight accorded the evidence, and the ultimate factual guilt of the defendant, are decided by the jury. We believe that the legislature had this distinction in mind, rather than standards of review, when it used the term question of law in HRS § 641-13. We therefore hold that, in a jury trial, issues decided by the judge are questions of law appealable under HRS § 641-13, while issues decided by the jury are questions of fact and are not appealable. [25] Other portions of the legislative history of HRS § 641-13 support our interpretation. When the original statute was amended in 1931 to add the provision now located in subsection (5), see 1931 Haw. Sess. L. Act 37, § 2 at 28-29, the Senate Judiciary Committee stated: The Bill also proposes to amend the present law by granting to the Territory greater leeway in taking up questions in criminal cases for review upon writ of error. The law now limits these in large part to cases in which the judgment of the lower court is based on the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the charge is founded. Your Committee believes that the more questions that may be settled in this manner will promote the more efficient enforcement of the criminal laws. Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 151, in 1931 Senate Journal, at 572 (emphases added). Thus, one purpose of adding subsection (5) was to promote efficiency. Our interpretation of the term question of law will allow this court to address more issues than under the narrow interpretation advocated by Defendant. This means that we will be able to correct a greater number of errors by trial courts while the cases are before us instead of allowing errors to remain uncorrected and perhaps repeated on retrial. We believe that immediately correcting errors is more efficient than allowing them to be perpetuated. Thus, our approach is more consistent with the purpose of the 1931 amendment that added subsection (5). Defendant argues that this court has long held that HRS § 641-13 must be strictly construed: The availability of appellate review sought by the State in a criminal case can be based only on clear statutory authority. This court has held that the statute must be strictly construed and that it cannot extend beyond the plain meaning of the terms found therein. State v. Bikle, 60 Haw. 576, 578-79, 592 P.2d 832, 834 (1979) (quoting State v. Johnson, 50 Haw. 525, 526, 445 P.2d 36, 37 (1968)). However, this strict construction rule, like the rule applicable to penal statutes generally, does not permit the court to ignore legislative intent in the face of statutory ambiguity, nor require the court to reject the construction that best harmonizes with the design of the statute or the end sought to be achieved. See State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 138-39, 890 P.2d 1167, 1178-79 (1995); State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 352, 845 P.2d 547, 552, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 849 P.2d 81 (1993). In the present case, the legislative history of HRS § 641-13, as well as the purpose of the 1931 amendment, support our interpretation. Therefore, issues decided by the trial judge are questions of law appealable under HRS § 641-13, while issues decided by the jury are questions of fact and are not appealable. The four issues raised in the Prosecution's cross-appeal are all issues decided by the trial judge. The first issue involves discovery. Under HRPP Rule 16, the trial court has the power to grant protective orders, conduct in camera proceedings, issue orders compelling discovery, and impose monetary sanctions. Thus, the supervision and management of discovery is the responsibility of the judge and, therefore, entails a question of law. The exclusion of the luminol and phenolphthalein test results and the exclusion of the evidence relating to Defendant's use of Goro's credit card both involve the admission of evidence. The admission of evidence is a preliminary question determined by the judge. HRE Rule 104(a). Thus, the second and third issues involve questions of law. Finally, the allegedly discriminatory use of peremptory challenges must, necessarily, be resolved by a decision of the judge. Peremptory challenges are exercised during jury selection. Because the issue involves the formation of the jury itself, the jury can have no role in deciding the issue. Thus, the fourth issue on cross-appeal is a question of law as well. The Prosecution has the right to appeal all four issues raised in its cross-appeal.
On September 12, 1994, the trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to compel discovery. The trial court ordered the Prosecution, inter alia, to use due diligence to obtain reports from the FBI, California law enforcement agencies, and any other law enforcement agency, to produce [a]ll rough notes of investigators in existence as of today's hearing, and to use due diligence to obtain extradition documents from the Japanese government. Subsequently, on February 21, 1995, the trial court ordered the Prosecution to make a direct request to Japanese officials for the extradition documents. On February 27, 1995, the trial court ordered the Prosecution to provide daily updates to the trial court regarding the status of the extradition documents. On March 6, 1995, the trial court ordered the Prosecution to produce all documents relating to the case, including notes, from all the Prosecution's witnesses, including civilian witnesses. In its cross-appeal, the Prosecution argues that all of the above orders were improper because they exceeded the scope of discovery authorized by HRPP Rule 16. Defendant argues, inter alia, that the orders were not contrary to HRPP Rule 16. [26] We consider each of the discovery orders in turn. The scope of discovery is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 216, 738 P.2d 812, 821 (1987). We first address the order requiring the Prosecution to produce [a]ll rough notes of investigators[.] HRPP Rule 16 provides in relevant part: (b) Disclosure by the Prosecution. (1) Disclosure of Matters Within Prosecution's Possession. The prosecutor shall disclose to the defendant or the defendant's attorney the following material and information within the prosecutor's possession or control: (i) the names and last known addresses of persons whom the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses in the presentation of the evidence in chief, together with their relevant written or recorded statements, provided that statements recorded by the prosecutor shall not be subject to disclosure[.] Thus, the rough notes of investigators are discoverable under HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(i) only if they qualify as relevant written or recorded statements of persons whom the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses. The meaning of statement has been a somewhat controversial issue. HRPP Rule 16 was derived substantially from the ABA Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial. Note to Rule 16, Proposed HRPP, at 128 (1975). The ABA Standards did not expressly define statement because of a disagreement among the committee members as to what definition to adopt. See American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Commentary to § 2.1, at 62-63 (Approved Draft 1970). The minority favored the restrictive definition of statement found in the federal Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e), [27] on the ground that it would be grossly unfair to allow an attorney to confront a witness on cross-examination with reports of his utterances that were neither substantially his own words nor approved or adopted by him. Id., 849 P.2d at 62. The majority, however, felt that the defense should have the benefit of written and recorded statements of prospective witnesses in whatever form the statements have been preserved. Id. The 1975 proposed draft of HRPP Rule 16 followed the example of the ABA Standards and did not expressly define statement, preferring instead to leave the matter to be developed by case law. Note to Rule 16, Proposed HRPP, at 130 (1975). Nevertheless, when the HRPP were finally adopted in October 1976 (becoming effective on January 1, 1977), Rule 16 contained an express definition of statement that was virtually identical to the definition in 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e). That definition remains in the current version of HRPP Rule 16 and provides: [(b)] (3) Definition. The term statement as used in subsection (b)(1)(i) ... of this rule means: (i) a written statement made by the witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the witness; or (ii) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by the witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement. Thus, HRPP Rule 16 has apparently adopted the restrictive definition of statement found in 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e), and we may look to federal case law in applying that definition. [28] Federal case law indicates that the notes of investigators are subject to production only if they qualify as a statement. In other words, the notes must be either a written statement that has been signed or otherwise adopted or approved, or they must be a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement that has been contemporaneously recorded. See United States v. Michaels, 796 F.2d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1038, 107 S.Ct. 893, 93 L.Ed.2d 845 (1987); United States v. Friedman, 593 F.2d 109, 120 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Johnson, 521 F.2d 1318, 1319 (9th Cir.1975); Hill v. United States, 401 F.2d 995, 996 (9th Cir.1968); Ogden v. United States, 303 F.2d 724, 736 (9th Cir.1962). In the present case, however, the trial court ordered the production of all rough notes of investigators. Inasmuch as the trial court failed to distinguish notes that qualify as a statement from notes that do not, the order was too broad. But more importantly, the order included rough notes. Under most circumstances, rough notes do not qualify as statements subject to production. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 354-55, 89 S.Ct. 528, 532-33, 21 L.Ed.2d 537 (1969); United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 69-70 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Griffin, 659 F.2d 932, 937 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 949, 102 S.Ct. 2019, 72 L.Ed.2d 473 (1982). Generally, the problem is that because the notes are rough, they do not constitute a substantially verbatim recital of the witness's statement. See United States v. Scriber, 499 F.2d 1041, 1048 (D.C.Cir. 1974); United States v. Stephens, 492 F.2d 1367, 1377 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 852, 874, 95 S.Ct. 93, 136, 42 L.Ed.2d 83, 114 (1974). Consequently, the trial court's order was overly broad and constituted an abuse of discretion. The order to use due diligence to obtain reports from the FBI, California law enforcement agencies, and any other law enforcement agency, as well as all of the orders relating to the extradition documents from Japan, were improper for the reasons discussed in part II.A.3., supra. Pursuant to HRPP Rule 16(b)(2), in order to be discoverable, documents not in the possession or control of the prosecution must be in the possession or control of other state agencies. Inasmuch as Japanese government agencies, the FBI, and California law enforcement agencies clearly are not agencies of the State of Hawai`i or its subdivisions, the orders were improper. Furthermore, the order to produce reports from any other law enforcement agency was valid only to the extent it applied to agencies of the State of Hawai`i or its subdivisions. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in issuing these orders. The order to produce all documents relating to the case, including notes, from all the Prosecution's witnesses, including civilians, was improper for two reasons. First, the order failed to distinguish documents that were discoverable under HRPP Rule 16 from documents that were not discoverable. As discussed supra, to be discoverable under HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(i), a document must qualify as a statement under HRPP Rule 16(b)(3). Not all notes are discoverable, and rough notes are likely not to be discoverable. Second, HRPP Rule 16 only requires that the prosecution produce documents that are either in its possession or control or in the possession or control of other state agencies. If the documents are not in the possession or control of the prosecution itself or other state agencies, the prosecution is not required to produce them. The trial court's order included documents held by all of the Prosecution's witnesses, without distinguishing whether they were agents or employees of state agencies or private citizens. For these reasons, the trial court's order was too broad and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. Defendant argues that the orders requiring production of notes were valid because the notes were discoverable as written statements of expert witnesses. We disagree. HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(iii) provides: [The prosecutor shall disclose] any reports or statements of experts, which were made in connection with the particular case or which the prosecutor intends to introduce, or which are material to the preparation of the defense and are specifically designated in writing by defense counsel, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons[.] Significantly, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrimP) Rule 16(a)(1)(D) also authorizes discovery of results or reports of physical or mental examinations and scientific tests or experiments. In United States v. Iglesias, 881 F.2d 1519 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S.Ct. 1154, 107 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1990), the Ninth Circuit held: Looking again at the operative wording of [FRCrimP] Rule 16(a)(1)(D): the defendant is entitled to any results or reports ... of scientific experiments (emphasis added). If the requested documents are either results or reports, then [defendant] is entitled to the discovery. It is perhaps not immediately obvious whether the internal log notes are in fact results or reports. The definition of the term report is [a]n official or formal statement of facts or proceedings. Black's Law Dictionary 1464 (4th ed.1968). The definition of result is the conclusion or end to which any course or condition of thing leads. Id. at 1478. Certainly, the lab report ... is clearly a report or a result and thus does fall within the meaning of Rule 16(a)(1)(D). But the requested log notes do not have the requisite formality or finality to be considered as either a report or result.... ... While we certainly respect defendants' right to inspect and copy the actual results or reports of scientific tests, we are not willing to force the government to disclose every single piece of paper that is generated internally in conjunction with such tests. Id. at 1523-24 (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Dennison, 937 F.2d 559, 565-66 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1037, 112 S.Ct. 886, 116 L.Ed.2d 789 (1992). Thus, even if we assume arguendo that the trial court's orders were based on HRPP Rule 16(b)(1)(iii), the notes of expert witnesses are not discoverable. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion. Defendant also relies on United States v. Paternina-Vergara, 749 F.2d 993, 998 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1217, 105 S.Ct. 1197, 84 L.Ed.2d 342 (1985), for the proposition that production of foreign documents is authorized where there have been cooperative efforts between the prosecution and the foreign government. However, other federal courts have refused to allow discovery of documents held by foreign governments. See Friedman, 593 F.2d at 119-20. Furthermore, the notes accompanying Proposed HRPP Rule 16 clearly indicate that HRPP Rule 16(b)(2) only applies to documents held by other agencies of the State of Hawai`i or its subdivisions. Therefore, we decline to follow Paternina-Vergara in this case. [29]
By motion filed on March 10, 1995, the Prosecution sought to introduce expert testimony on luminol and phenolphthalein test results. Defendant opposed the motion. At a subsequent hearing, Mary Wagner, an HPD evidence specialist, explained that luminol and phenolphthalein are used as presumptive tests in the field to identify potential blood stains. However, she also testified that the two tests can generate false positive reactions. The tests can react to metal surfaces, cleansers containing iron-based substances, horseradish, and rust. Neither test can distinguish between animal blood and human blood, and they cannot determine how long the substance has been at the scene. When a positive reaction occurs, a criminalist must do a confirmatory test in order to conclusively determine that the test sample is human blood. Wagner stated that she tested various locations in Defendant's apartment with both luminol and phenolphthalein and that some of those sites tested positive. The trial court ultimately excluded expert testimony on the luminol and phenolphthalein test results. The trial court ruled that, because of the limitations of the tests, the presumption of the presence of blood was relevant only to the extent that it could be supported by confirmatory tests. Moreover, the trial court ruled that, without confirmatory tests, the prejudicial effect of the evidence was not outweighed by its probative value. Inasmuch as confirmatory tests were not conducted, the trial court excluded the evidence. On April 6, 1995, defense counsel elicited testimony from Wagner that no blood was found on any of the cushions in Defendant's apartment. The Prosecution subsequently asked the trial court to reconsider its exclusion of luminol and phenolphthalein results on the grounds that, by eliciting testimony as to test results on the cushions, defense counsel had opened the door. Defense counsel argued that the trial court had only excluded positive test results, not negative test results. The trial court ruled that its prior order only applied to positive test results and that defense counsel had not violated that order. In its cross-appeal, the Prosecution argues that the test results were relevant and should have been admitted. Furthermore, the Prosecution argues that confirmatory tests were in fact conducted on evidence found in the apartmentDNA tests indicated that a scrap of paper found in the apartment contained a blood spot that matched Goro's blood. The Prosecution also argues that the trial court erred in ruling that defense counsel had not opened the door to evidence of positive test results. As discussed in part II.A.1., supra, we apply a two-pronged analysis in addressing proposed expert testimony. The testimony must be both relevant and reliable. State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai`i 507, 533, 928 P.2d 1, 27 (1996); State v. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i 172, 181, 907 P.2d 758, 767 (1995). Furthermore, the trial court must balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i at 181, 907 P.2d at 767; see also HRE Rule 403. The admission of expert testimony is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Maelega, 80 Hawai`i at 180, 907 P.2d at 766. We believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony. The trial court apparently ruled that the luminol and phenolphthalein test results failed the relevancy prong of the analysis, but that, even if they did not, the test results were more prejudicial than probative. [30] Wagner testified that luminol and phenolphthalein tests are subject to false positive reactions and that confirmatory tests must be conducted to conclusively establish the presence of human blood. Confirmatory tests were not conducted on the sites in the apartment. Thus, the record more than adequately supports the trial court's ruling. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on the test results. We disagree with the Prosecution's assertion that the DNA tests performed on the scrap of paper found in the apartment constitute confirmatory testing sufficient to render the test results admissible. Confirmatory tests can only provide confirmation for the piece of evidence tested. Thus, the DNA tests performed on the scrap of paper cannot provide confirmation for the other sites in the apartment that were not tested. We also disagree with the Prosecution's contention that defense counsel opened the door to admission of the test results. Although the Prosecution cites no authority, its argument appears to be based on the doctrine of curative admissibility, also known as opening the door or fighting fire with fire. Under this doctrine, when one party introduces inadmissible evidence, the opposing party may respond by introducing his own inadmissible evidence on the same issue. See United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Thompson, 465 F.2d 583, 585 (D.C.Cir.1972); Vine St. Corp. v. City of Council Bluffs, 220 N.W.2d 860, 864 (Iowa 1974); McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 83-84 (4th ed.1992); 1 Wigmore on Evidence § 15, at 731-51 (1983). We note that this doctrine is subject to abuse and that most jurisdictions have limited its use to situations in which the originally submitted evidence creates significant prejudice. Wigmore on Evidence § 15, at 741-42 & n.6. The Prosecution apparently argues that the luminol and phenolphthalein test results were rendered inadmissible by the trial court's exclusion order. When defense counsel elicited testimony as to negative test results, he introduced inadmissible evidence and opened the door to the admission of positive test results in rebuttal. However, in her testimony, Wagner discussed only the danger of false positives, not false negatives. Thus, the trial court's exclusion order was implicitly confined to evidence of positive test results and did not include negative test results. Consequently, evidence of negative test results remained admissible. When defense counsel elicited testimony regarding negative test results, he introduced admissible evidence, not inadmissible evidence. Therefore, even if we were to adopt the doctrine of curative admissibility, it would not be applicable to the present case. See United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 1304, 1307 (D.C.Cir.1990) (holding that defense counsel did not open the door because the testimony elicited was not inadmissible). Therefore, in summary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony on the luminol and phenolphthalein test results.
On December 16, 1994, Defendant filed his motion in limine number 20, seeking to exclude evidence of Defendant's alleged use of Goro Fujita's credit card. At a hearing, the Prosecution alleged that Goro's credit card had been used by Defendant to rent a couple of automobiles in November and December 1993, and that a dispute later developed over repayment of the debt. The Prosecution argued that this evidence established a motive, namely, that Defendant was having financial difficulty at the time. Defense counsel argued that the debt was remote in time and unrelated to the present case. The trial court granted the motion and excluded the evidence. The trial court found that the issue raised is not so much centered around the Defendant's liability and obligation and/or financial situation, but more as a dispute between himself and Mr. Fujita over the payment of the credit card charge. And also it is not within the time period of this offense as well. Thus, the trial court apparently concluded that the evidence was not relevant under HRE Rules 401 and 402. [31] In its cross-appeal, the Prosecution argues that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence because it was relevant. We apply the right/wrong standard of review to relevance determinations under HRE Rules 401 and 402. Kealoha v. County of Hawai`i, 74 Haw. 308, 314-15, 844 P.2d 670, 674, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 847 P.2d 263 (1993). We believe that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence. The fact that Defendant used Goro's credit card to rent a car does not mean that he was in financial difficulty. It may simply have been more convenient to use Goro's credit card, Defendant may not have had any credit cards, or the rental car agency may have required a credit card. Furthermore, a dispute over repayment of the debt does not mean that Defendant was financially unable to pay it. The dispute could have involved confusion over the amount due or the time within which it was to be repaid. The evidence simply indicated that there had been some kind of disagreement involving Goro's credit card and nothing more. Additionally, these events occurred months prior to the deaths of the Fujitas. Thus, the credit card issue was irrelevant, and the trial court properly excluded the evidence under HRE Rules 401 and 402.
On January 23, 1995, jury selection in the present case commenced. When the Prosecution exercised its seventh peremptory challenge, defense counsel argued: Your Honor, we at this point apprise the Court that we feel there may be improper dismissal of jurors based on racial bias by the prosecution. [Prosecutor] is dismissing Native Hawaiians, local people routinely. The State law is very clear in this matter.... And our position is that [Prosecutor] is targeting local people and removing them from the jury. The trial court subsequently found that six out of the seven peremptory challenges exercised by the Prosecution reflected persons of local ethnic background and eventually granted Defendant's mistrial motion. However, when the Prosecution asked the trial court for a definition of local, the court responded: Well, counsel, I think we know what we all mean by that. In its cross-appeal, the Prosecution argues that under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the defendant must first make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor is excluding members of a cognizable racial group. Only then does the burden shift to the prosecution to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for the challenges. See also Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); State v. Levinson, 71 Haw. 492, 795 P.2d 845 (1990); State v. Batson, 71 Haw. 300, 788 P.2d 841 (1990). In the present case, the trial court found that the Prosecution was excluding persons of local ethnic background. The Prosecution argues that the term local does not refer to a cognizable racial group. Defendant, however, argues that local people are indeed a cognizable racial group in Hawai`i. [32] Whether a group is a cognizable racial group is a question of fact. Alen v. State, 596 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla.Ct.App.1992) (holding that the decision as to whether Hispanics are a cognizable racial group is a question of fact) (citing Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954)), decision approved, 616 So.2d 452 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we review this matter under the clearly erroneous standard. However, we believe that the record in the present case is not sufficiently developed for us to determine whether the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Our review is severely impeded by the trial court's failure to define the term local people. As the Prosecution correctly suggests, the word local is extremely obscure and could mean many things. [33] Because we have no idea what the trial court meant by local people, we do not even have a starting point in conducting our analysis. Even if the trial court had provided a definition of local people, the record does not indicate what criteria the court applied in deciding cognizability. Federal courts have applied the following factors in determining the cognizability of racial or ethnic groups under Batson: (1) the group must be definable and limited by some clearly identifiable factor, (2) a common thread of attitudes, ideas or experiences must run through the group, and (3) there must exist a community of interests among the members, such that the groups interests cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process. United States v. Di Pasquale, 864 F.2d 271, 277 (3d Cir.1988) (considering whether Italian-Americans are a cognizable racial or ethnic group), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3216, 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989); United States v. Sgro, 816 F.2d 30, 33 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063, 108 S.Ct. 1021, 98 L.Ed.2d 986 (1988). In addition, the record does not indicate what evidence the court relied upon in deciding that local people are a cognizable racial or ethnic group. Conclusory allegations are an insufficient evidentiary basis for a finding of cognizability; rather, a factual showing of the cognizability of the group is required. Di Pasquale, 864 F.2d at 276-77; Sgro, 816 F.2d at 33. Therefore, because the trial court has not provided us with an adequate record to determine whether local people are a cognizable racial or ethnic group, we express no opinion on the subject. Should this issue arise again during a possible retrial, the trial court is instructed to define what it means by local people, to conduct an evidentiary hearing on cognizability, and to make the necessary factual findings.