430 P.3d 892 (Hawai’i App. 2018), CAAP-17-0000701, State v. Beaudet-Close

Docket Nº:CAAP-17-0000701
Citation:430 P.3d 892, 143 Hawai‘i 331
Party Name:STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony G. BEAUDET-CLOSE, Defendant-Appellant,
Attorney:Linda L. Walton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Victor M. Cox, for Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.
Case Date:November 29, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 892

430 P.3d 892 (Hawai’i App. 2018)

143 Hawai‘i 331

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Anthony G. BEAUDET-CLOSE, Defendant-Appellant,

No. CAAP-17-0000701

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i

November 29, 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This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 THIRD CIRCUIT (CRIMINAL NO. 3PC16100368K)

On the briefs:

Linda L. Walton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Victor M. Cox, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Anthony G. Beaudet-Close (Beaudet-Close) appeals from the "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence" (Judgment)1 entered on September 13, 2017 in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court).2 The State of Hawaii (State) charged Beaudet-Close with one count of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree pursuant to § § 705-500(1) (b)[3] and 4

707-701.5 (1) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), and one count for the lesser included offense of Assault in the First Degree pursuant to HRS § 707-710,5 for an altercation that occurred on or about October 28, 2016. Beaudet-Close was found guilty of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and sentenced to imprisonment for Life with the Possibility of Parole.

On appeal, Beaudet-Close asserts that the circuit court erred in allowing over objection: 1) the testimony of the victim’s brother; 2) the introduction and playing to the jury of the entire recording of Beaudet-Close’s police interview, including the portion where Defendant declined to participate in a recorded "walk through" re-enactment; and 3) the introduction of photographs showing pools of blood.

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.

I. Testimony of Victim’s Brother

The circuit court erred when it overruled Beaudet-Close’s objection to the testimony of David Ault (David) because Beaudet-Close failed to file a motion in limine to exclude this testimony. As the State concedes, there is no requirement that a motion in limine be filed to object to the testimony of a witness. See Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 103(a)(1) (allowing error in the admission or exclusion of evidence to be based on an objection to the evidence).

In any event, the error was harmless, as the circuit court’s decision to allow David’s testimony, over Beaudet-Close’s specific objection on relevance grounds, was correct. See HRE Rule 401.6 Beaudet-Close argues that David’s testimony was irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. The State charged Beaudet-Close with both Assault in the First Degree and Attempted Murder. Assault in the First Degree under HRS § 707-710 requires proof of "serious bodily injury," which is defined by HRS § 707-700 as "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." The State called David as a witness to prove an element of Assault in the First Degree by testifying as to the victim’s lengthy loss or impairment of his bodily functions and to serious permanent disfigurement of the victim’s face, namely his eyes. The State’s line of questioning included inquiries into the development of the victim’s mental and physical condition while he was at Queen’s Medical Center and after he was moved to a skilled nursing facility.7 Upon review, we conclude that David’s testimony was relevant to the proof of serious bodily injury.

Beaudet-Close also contends that Davids testimony was highly prejudicial in that there was no dispute as to the extent of the victims injuries, of which there was ample other evidence, and thus, that Davids testimony had nothing to add and was cumulative to the extent of injury issue. He further asserts that the circuit court erred by admitting his testimony without weighing or balancing its probative value against its prejudicial effect. Davids testimony detailed the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP