429 P.3d 603 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-18-0000009, State v. Sharp
|Citation:||429 P.3d 603, 143 Hawaii 281|
|Party Name:||STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Quinn A. SHARP, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.|
|Case Date:||October 30, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (WAIANAE DIVISION) (CASE NO. 1DTA-17-00927).
On the briefs:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaii (the
State) appeals from the December 8, 2017 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants Motion to Suppress SFST and Statements for Violations of Article 1, section 7 and 10 of the Hawaii Constitution (Suppression Order), which was entered by the Waianae Division of the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court).1
The State raises one point of error on appeal, contending that the District Court erred in concluding that any statements made by Defendant-Appellee Quinn A. Sharp (Sharp) after exiting his vehicle and in response to questions posed by Honolulu Police Officer Kenneth Fontes (Fontes) are suppressed and cannot be used by the State against Sharp as substantive proof against Sharp.
Upon careful review of the record and the brief submitted on appeal,2 and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve the States point of error as follows:
In Conclusion of Law 4 of the Suppression Order, the District Court concluded that, because Sharp was not informed of his right to remain silent and because Sharp did not verbally or in writing waive his right to remain silent, any statements Sharp made after exiting his vehicle and in response to Officer Fontess questions would be suppressed, except for impeachment purposes if Sharp were to testify at trial. The State...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP