429 P.3d 603 (Hawai’i App. 2018), CAAP-18-0000009, State v. Sharp

Docket Nº:CAAP-18-0000009
Citation:429 P.3d 603, 143 Hawai‘i 281
Party Name:STATE of Hawai‘i, 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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 603

429 P.3d 603 (Hawai’i App. 2018)

143 Hawai‘i 281

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Quinn A. SHARP, Defendant-Appellee.

No. CAAP-18-0000009

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i

October 30, 2018

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 (WAI‘ANAE 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 Hawai‘i (the

State) appeals from the December 8, 2017 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Suppress SFST and Statements for Violations of Article 1, section 7 and 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution (Suppression Order), which was entered by the Wai‘anae 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 State’s 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP