430 P.3d 891 (Hawai’i App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000578, State v. Brede

Docket Nº:CAAP-16-0000578
Citation:430 P.3d 891, 143 Hawai‘i 330
Party Name:STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sky L. BREDE, Defendant-Appellant,
Attorney:Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Barry L. Sooalo, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.
Case Date:November 27, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 891

430 P.3d 891 (Hawai’i App. 2018)

143 Hawai‘i 330

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Sky L. BREDE, Defendant-Appellant,

No. CAAP-16-0000578

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i

November 27, 2018

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CRIMINAL NO. 15-1-0907)

On the briefs:

Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barry L. Sooalo, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellant.

By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Sky L. Brede (Brede) appeals from the "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" entered on June 27, 2016 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).1 The circuit court convicted Brede of one count of Assault in the Third Degree (Assault 3), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-712(1)(a),2 and sentenced him to one year of probation and one day of jail.

On appeal, Brede contends that the circuit court improperly limited the questioning of the complaining witness, Henry Frazier (Frazier), thereby violating Brede’s right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 14 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution.

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, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we affirm.

Where a factual dispute exists as to who was the first aggressor for purposes of Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 404 and 405, the extent to which evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts may be admitted is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Basque, 66 Haw. 510, 515, 666 P.2d 599, 603 (1983).

With regards to the admissibility of a victims prior violent acts (including those reflected in the victims criminal record), the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated: when there is a factual dispute as to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP