Court Opinion

ID: 9633061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:32:47.246847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:28.495146
License: Public Domain

NAKAYAMA, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s judgment affirming the trial court’s order suppressing Bowe’s statement to Sergeant Pinero. Like Justice Klein, I do not join in the majority’s opinion but concur separately because I believe that the trial court correctly ruled that Bowe’s statement was inadmissible under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 621-26 (1985). Because we can affirm on that basis alone and because the trial court did not base its ruling on either the Hawaii or United States Constitutions, it is unnecessary and therefore inappropriate to reach the constitutional issues addressed by the majority. See State v. Kam, 68 Haw. 631, 635, 726 P.2d 263, 266 (1986); State v. Lo, 66 Haw. 653, 657, 675 P.2d 754, 757 (1983).
Although I agree with Justice Klein’s analysis of HRS § 621-26 and its applicability in this case, I write separately to explain why I feel constrained to conclude that Bowe’s statement was not “voluntarily made.” HRS § 621-26.
To begin with, the State does not assign as error any of the trial court’s findings of fact (FOF). In particular, the State does not challenge the trial court’s findings that:
[FOF] 3. Wallace, as head basketball coach, had the authority to suspend athletes or remove them from the Basketball Team and, in the case of scholarship-athletes, to initiate procedures to withdraw their athletic scholarships.
[FOF] 4. Defendant TROY BOWE was a scholarship-athlete on the Basketball Team.
[FOF] 8. Wallace ... informed [Bowe] that he had to go down to the Honolulu Police Department to meet with Sergeant Pinero.
[FOF] 9. Wallace informed Defendant TROY BOWE that Wallace would accompany him to the Honolulu Police Department in place of an attorney and instructed Defendant TROY BOWE to make a statement to Sargeant [sic] Pinero.
[FOF] 10. Wallace did not inform Defendant TROY BOWE that he could or should have an attorney present with him when he went to be interviewed by Sar-geant [sic] Pinero.
[FOF] 11. Defendant TROY BOWE believed that he could not refuse to follow Wallace’s directions because if he did so Wallace could suspend him from the Basketball Team or institute procedures to revoke Defendant TROY BOWE’S atheletic-scholarship [sic].
Because the State has not assigned these FOFs as points of error on appeal,1 we are bound to take them as conceded. See Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(b)(4) (1993). In my view, the undisputed FOFs support only one conclusion—that Bowe’s statement was not voluntarily made. Thus, the State’s failure to challenge any of the FOFs constrains me to affirm the trial court’s conclusion of law that Bowe’s statement was not “voluntarily made” and therefore inadmissible under HRS § 621-26.
Even if the State had properly put at issue the relevant FOF, I could not conclude that they are clearly erroneous. That is not to *63say that I do not have serious misgivings about the accuracy of several of the FOFs, most notably FOFs 9 and 11. Those FOFs were based on the testimony given by Wallace and Bowe at the suppression hearing. Based on my review of the transcript of the hearing, that testimony was of questionable credibility, having been given only after much prompting from Bowe’s attorney on direct examination and in response to what can only be described as leading questions asked by the trial court.
I recognize, however, that an appellate court should “ ‘not pass on issues dependent upon credibility of witnesses ... [because] this is the province of the trial judge.’ ” State v. Propios, 76 Hawai'i 474, 879 P.2d 1057, 1065 (1994) (quoting State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 180, 873 P.2d 51, 59 (Sup.1994)). That being so, I have little choice but to accept the trial court’s decision to accept as true the testimony of Wallace and Bowe.
Therefore, given the state of the record before us, I am constrained to affirm the trial court’s order of suppression..

. In its opening brief, the State simply takes the position that Bowe's " ‘fear’ of being suspended from the basketball team if he failed to follow the coach’s direction to make a statement has no legal consequence in determining the voluntariness of his confession.” The State further asserts that "the disciplinary power of the basketball coach has no legal consequence in the determination of whether a confession has been made voluntarily and without any coercion from any law enforcement authority.”