Court Opinion

ID: 9930362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 18:04:37.54955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:00.293231
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 06-FEB-2024
                                                 07:51 AM
                                                 Dkt. 65 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                 STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                   v.
                  OSCAR CARDONA, Defendant-Appellant

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                     (CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

                    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
   (By Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

           Defendant-Appellant Oscar Cardona (Cardona) appeals

from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) on

December 13, 2022.1     Cardona was charged by felony indictment2

     1      The Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided over the jury trial, and
the Honorable Ronald G. Johnson presided over the sentencing.

     2     The felony indictment provided,

           On or about June 1, 2021, in the City and County of
           Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi, OSCAR CARDONA did intentionally
           or knowingly cause the death of Elian Delacerda, thereby
                                                            (continued . . .)
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

with one count of Murder in the Second Degree in violation of

Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 707-701.5 (Supp. 2019) and 706-656

(2014).     The matter proceeded to a jury trial, which commenced

on August 24, 2022.       On September 2, 2022, the jury found

Cardona guilty as charged.        On December 13, 2022, Cardona was

sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

             Cardona contends on appeal that the deputy prosecuting

attorney (DPA) committed prosecutorial misconduct by: (1)

"offering his personal opinions about witness credibility,

including an attack on Cardona's credibility solely based on

[his] party status [as defendant]"; and (2) by "testifying as a

witness in his own case, and by asking excessive leading

questions."     Cardona further contends that the circuit court

erred: (1) "when it did not provide a State v. Gabriel

[No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1284613, (Haw. App. Apr. 29, 2022)

(mem. op.)] limiting instruction [to the jury] in response to

[testifying police officers'] Police Identifications of Cardona

from video evidence"; and (2) "when it provided the 'Voluntary

Act' instruction" to the jury.         Upon careful review of the

record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given

due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues

     2(.   . . continued)
             committing the offense of Murder in the Second Degree, in
             violation of Sections 707-701.5 and 706-656 of the Hawaiʻi
             Revised Statutes.

                                       2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

raised by the parties, we resolve Cardona's points of error as

follows:

           (1) We conclude that the DPA did not commit

prosecutorial misconduct by offering his personal opinions on

witness credibility, and/or attacking Cardona's credibility

based on his defendant party status.

             "The term prosecutorial misconduct is a legal term of

art that refers to any improper action committed by a

prosecutor, however harmless or unintentional."           State v.

Conroy, 148 Hawaiʻi 194, 201, 468 P.3d 208, 215 (2020) (cleaned

up).   We review contentions of prosecutorial misconduct under

the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard.            See State v.

Mainaaupo, 117 Hawaiʻi 235, 247, 178 P.3d 1, 13 (2008).

           Cardona contends that the DPA committed prosecutorial

misconduct through, inter alia, the following remarks during

trial: (1) comments perceived as referencing Cardona's allegedly

poor eyesight;3 (2) his use of the term "[Waikīkī] wrecking

crew," which was in reference to other individuals that Cardona

was with during the night of the incident; (3) his asking

Cardona, during cross-examination, to demonstrate his actions

using a pen rather than a knife because "I don't want to give

      3     These included the DPA's remark that he needed to remove his own
glasses because they were "fogging up" (the DPA was wearing a face mask,
consistent with the court's COVID-19 protocol), the closing statement remarks
that "[t]here's no credible, independent evidence that [Cardona] had an eye
problem" (emphasis added), and "[y]ou take off your glasses, you get up close
to somebody, maybe you might see, but you see a figure."
                                       3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

you the knife"; and (4) his general observation during closing

statement, not specifically directed at Cardona, that "People

lie.       The evidence doesn't lie.".

              When reviewed in context, the DPA's remarks were

either benign statements, or reasonable inferences that could be

drawn from the record facts.        State v. Tuua, 125 Hawaiʻi 10, 14,

250 P.3d 273, 277 (2011) ("prosecutors are entitled to draw

reasonable inferences from the evidence.") (citations omitted).

As such, we conclude that the statements did not constitute

improper expressions of the DPA's personal views regarding

Cardona's guilt and/or credibility as a witness.

              We further conclude that the DPA's repeated use of

leading questions throughout trial was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt.

              It appears, based on our review of the record, that

Cardona objected to the DPA's leading questions numerous times

during the DPA's direct examination of various State witnesses.

We conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its

discretion in sustaining these objections where warranted,

instructing the DPA to ask "open-ended questions" only, and, as

appropriate, striking leading questions and answers from the

record.4      State v. Pasene, 144 Hawaiʻi 339, 367, 439 P.3d 864,

       4    Although we reject Cardona's argument that his conviction should
be vacated based on the DPA's numerous leading questions, we do so based on
the circuit court's prompt, proper, and curative management of the DPA's
                                                             (continued . . .)
                                       4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

892 (2019) (determining that "the circuit court's actions were

sufficient to cure the impropriety of the DPA's conduct" with

respect to his questioning of a witness, where "the circuit

court acted properly to promptly sustain each of defense

counsel's objections and to issue curative instructions where

necessary.").

           (2) We conclude that the circuit court did not err in

its instructions to the jury.        "When jury instructions or the

omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review

is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the

instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous,

inconsistent, or misleading."        State v. Nichols, 111 Hawaiʻi 327,

334, 141 P.3d 974, 981 (2006) (citation omitted).

           On this record, we conclude that the lack of a

limiting instruction, regarding the testifying officers'

identification of Cardona from video evidence, was not

prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or

misleading.    Moreover, the circuit court did not err in its sua

     4(.  . . continued)
conduct, and our assessment that there is no reasonable possibility that the
DPA's conduct might have contributed to Cardona's conviction. We
nevertheless note that the DPA's repeated asking of leading questions, in
spite of the circuit court's directions to the contrary, does not promote a
positive image of the legal profession, does not assist the court and/or the
jury in reviewing the case, and does not display appropriate respect for the
criminal justice system. Cf. Section 12 of the Guidelines of Professional
Courtesy and Civility for Hawaiʻi Lawyers.

                                      5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sponte "Voluntary Act" instruction, which informed the jury of a

potential defense available to Cardona.

          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Judgment of

Conviction and Sentence entered by the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit on December 13, 2022.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 6, 2024.

On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Myles S. Breiner,                     Acting Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
                                      /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Brian Vincent,                        Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,          /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee.               Associate Judge

                                  6