Opinion ID: 4540255
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: After completion of State’s evidence

Text: After the State rested its case and the circuit court denied Ikimaka’s motions for judgment of acquittal and directed verdict, on August 20, 2015, Ikimaka moved for a mistrial due to the prosecution’s elicitation of testimony from Officer Agbayani regarding Ikimaka’s exercise of his right to remain silent. The circuit court denied the motion, noting that it had issued curative instructions. Ikimaka and Numazawa did not call any witnesses, and they did not testify. On August 24, 2015, the jury found Ikimaka guilty of both counts. Numazawa was acquitted. On December 30, 2015, the circuit court issued its second amended judgment of conviction and probation sentence, 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  sentencing Ikimaka to four years of probation with nine months additional imprisonment for both Counts 1 and 2.8 C. ICA proceedings On January 4, 2016, Ikimaka filed his notice of appeal to the ICA.9 On December 18, 2019, the ICA filed its amended memorandum opinion, affirming Ikimaka’s conviction. State v. Ikimaka, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (App. Dec. 18, 2019) (mem.).10 In relevant part, the ICA held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Officer Hsu to give his lay opinion under HRE Rule 701. Ikimaka, mem. op. at 13. According to the ICA, although Officer Hsu “did not have personal knowledge of [Ikimaka’s] statement” to “[j]ust arrest [him] and don’t take [his] truck,” Officer Agbayani had told him about the statement and there was no dispute that Ikimaka made the statement. Ikimaka, mem. op. at 16. Therefore, the ICA determined Officer Hsu’s opinion was rationally related to his knowledge, experience, and perceptions. Id. The ICA also held the DPA did not commit misconduct by eliciting testimony about Ikimaka’s exercise of his right to 8 Ikimaka was also ordered to pay a $205 Crime Victim Compensation Fee, a $150 Probation Services Fee, and a $2,000 Drug Demand Reduction Assessment for Count 1, and a $105 Crime Victim Compensation Fee and a $1,000 Drug Demand Reduction Assessment for Count 2. 9 See supra text at and note 3, regarding the points on appeal. 10 There are no substantive differences between the original memorandum opinion filed on November 27, 2019, and the amended memorandum opinion filed on December 18, 2019. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  remain silent. Ikimaka, mem. op. at 18 (citing State v. Tsujimura, 140 Hawai‘i 299, 315, 400 P.3d 500, 516 (2017) (holding the test in cases where the prosecution elicits information regarding a defendant’s prearrest silence is whether the prosecutor intended for the information to imply the defendant’s guilt or whether the character of the information suggests that the prearrest silence may be considered as inferential evidence of guilt). The ICA determined that the DPA had elicited the testimony in an attempt to “set the physical circumstances of [a] permitted statement” (Ikimaka’s apparent spontaneous statement to Officer Agbayani) and did not intend to use Ikimaka’s silence to imply his guilt. Ikimaka, mem. op. at 18-20. Furthermore, the ICA noted the circuit court immediately struck the challenged testimony. Ikimaka, mem. op. at 20. The ICA also stated in a footnote that “at the time of this trial, it had not been decided by either the United States Supreme Court nor the Hawai‘i Supreme Court that a defendant’s right to remain silent existed prior to arrest, or whether prearrest silence could be used against a defendant at trial.” Ikimaka, mem. op. at 20 n.15. On January 21, 2020, the ICA issued its judgment affirming the circuit court’s second amended judgment of conviction. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  D. Application for writ of certiorari Ikimaka’s application restates arguments made before the ICA. As noted, we only address Ikimaka’s first two questions on certiorari: whether the DPA should have elicited testimony regarding Ikimaka’s exercise of his right to remain silent, and whether the circuit court erred by admitting into evidence Officer Hsu’s lay opinion testimony on Ikimaka’s intent and knowledge. We need not and do not address Ikimaka’s remaining questions on certiorari.