Court Opinion

ID: 9943066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:04:39.377085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:01.020532
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                       Electronically Filed
                                                       Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                       CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                       22-FEB-2024
                                                       07:52 AM
                                                       Dkt. 79 SO

                             NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                   IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                           OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                   STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                     v.
                 JASON W. LANGEVIEN, Defendant-Appellant.

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

                        SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By:      Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

              Defendant-Appellant Jason Langevien (Langevien)

appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (Judgment),

entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit

court) on August 1, 2022,1 for Unauthorized Entry into Motor

Vehicle in the First Degree.2

        1     The Honorable Paul B.K. Wong presided.

        2     Hawaii Revised Statutes § 708-836.5 (2014) states, in pertinent
part,

                                                                  (continued . . .)
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           Langevien raises two points of error on appeal.           He

contends: (1) the circuit court erred in denying his Motion in

Limine to exclude the DNA expert's testimony, and (2) the State

committed prosecutorial misconduct during the hearing on

Langevien's Motion in Limine (motion in limine), closing

statement, and rebuttal closing statement.         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 raised by the parties, we conclude that the circuit court

erred in admitting the DNA evidence.        We thus vacate the

Judgment, and remand this case for a new trial.

           Langevien specifically contends that the circuit court

erred when it denied his motion in limine to exclude: (1) the

DNA chart that the State's DNA expert Adam Orimoto (Orimoto) had

"prepared which compared the numbers from several loci from the

DNA profiles of the samples obtained from the flashlight and the

knife, with the numbers from the same loci obtained from

Defendant's full DNA profile"; and (2) "Orimoto's testimony

about the comparisons because the correspondences between the

numbers from the samples and the numbers from Defendant's DNA

     (continued . . .)
           Unauthorized entry into motor vehicle in the first degree.
     (1) A person commits the offense of unauthorized entry into motor
     vehicle in the first degree if the person intentionally or
     knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle,
     without being invited, licensed, or otherwise authorized to enter
     or remain within the vehicle, with the intent to commit a crime
     against a person or against property rights.

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

profile created the impression that the samples incriminated

Defendant[.]"    Langevien contends that the evidence had a

"confusing nature" and "[gave] the jury the false impression

that the DNA on the samples incriminated" him.      Langevien's

contentions have merit.

            "The admissibility of evidence requires different

standards of review depending on the particular rule of evidence

at issue."   State v. Cordeiro, 99 Hawaiʻi 390, 403-04, 56 P.3d

692, 705-06 (2002) (citation omitted).     Here, Langevien moved in

limine to exclude expert testimony on the basis that it lacked

probative value pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE)

Rule 403, and we thus review the circuit court's ruling for

abuse of discretion.    State v. Pulse, 83 Hawaiʻi 229, 247,

925 P.2d 797, 815 (1996) ("Evidentiary decisions based on

HRE 403, which require a 'judgment call' by the trial court, are

reviewed for an abuse of discretion.") (citation omitted).

            The circuit court abused its discretion in permitting

Orimoto, utilizing the chart as a "demonstrative aid," to

testify extensively at trial on the clearly inconclusive DNA

evidence.    This testimony lacked probative value, given that it

neither inculpated nor exculpated Langevien.      Moreover, its

introduction prejudiced Langevien by suggesting that, however

inconclusive, Langevien's DNA could not be excluded from the DNA

                                  3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

samples collected at the crime scene.3         This opened the door for

the prosecution to reference the DNA evidence during closing

argument, as one of "[e]leven pieces of evidence" of Langevien's

guilt.4   We conclude, on this record, that the circuit court

abused its discretion in admitting the inconclusive DNA

evidence.

            For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court's

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, filed on August 1, 2022, is

vacated, and this case is remanded for a new trial.

            DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 22, 2024.

On the briefs:
                                          /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
William H. Jameson, Jr.,                  Presiding Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.                  /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                          Associate Judge
Stephen K. Tsushima,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,              /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
City and County of Honolulu               Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

     3      The circuit court, in ruling on the motion in limine, noted that
"Mr. Langevien cannot be included, cannot be excluded[,]" because "[t]here is
no DNA match[.]" Orimoto testified at trial that the DNA testimony presented
"essentially no conclusions" because it was "inconclusive."

     4      Defendant contends that this statement, inter alia, constituted
prosecutorial misconduct. Given our conclusion that the circuit court erred
in admitting the inconclusive DNA evidence, we do not reach Langevien's
contention of prosecutorial misconduct.
                                       4