State v. Matsumoto

Citation452 P.3d 310
Decision Date29 October 2019
Docket NumberSCWC-14-0000933
Parties STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith T. MATSUMOTO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CourtHawaii Supreme Court

David M. Hayakawa, Honolulu, for petitioner

Chad M. Kumagai, (Stephen K. Tsushima, Honolulu, with him on the briefs), for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J.

The defendant in this case confessed to a crime after an interrogating officer informed him, untruthfully, that he did not pass a polygraph test. Our case law has established that deliberate falsehoods extrinsic to the facts of the alleged offense, which are of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement or to influence an accused to make a confession regardless of guilt, will be regarded as coercive per se.

The trial court in this case determined that defendant’s confession was voluntarily made and admitted it into evidence over defense objection. The court also ruled that the defendant during his trial testimony, when discussing the circumstances of his confession, could not mention the word "polygraph," the word "test," or that the interrogating officer gave him inaccurate test results before his confession was elicited.

In this appeal, we consider whether a deliberate falsehood regarding polygraph results impermissibly taints a confession. We also address whether the court-imposed limitations on defendant’s testimony violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront witnesses. Lastly, we determine the propriety of the court’s instruction to the jury that defined an element of the charged offense.

Based upon our review, we conclude that the circuit court erred in its rulings on these three issues and accordingly vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND AND CIRCUIT COURT PROCEEDINGS

Keith T. Matsumoto was arrested at a wrestling tournament at Farrington High School (Farrington HS) on the island of O‘ahu on June 9, 2012, based upon allegations that he committed a sexual offense during the tournament. Matsumoto was subsequently indicted in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) for sexual assault in the third degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-732(1)(c).1

A. Motion to Suppress

Matsumoto moved to suppress statements that he made during and after a polygraph examination conducted while he was in police custody on June 10, 2012, as well as any other item of evidence recovered by the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) after that date.

A hearing on the motion was held at which Matsumoto, Detective (Det.) Allan Kuaana, and Det. Kim McCumsey testified about the events surrounding a series of custodial interrogations that took place following Matsumoto’s arrest.2

Matsumoto testified that he was the State Coordinator for Wrestling for the Hawai‘i High School Athletic Association, that his daughter was a wrestler, and that he had gone to Farrington HS with his daughter on June 9, 2012, to volunteer for a wrestling tournament. Matsumoto stated that at about 12:30 p.m. he was asked to step outside, where police officers placed him under arrest. He was taken to the HPD main station, he testified, where he was booked and held in custody. At approximately 8:30 p.m. that evening, Det. McCumsey removed him from his cell and took him to an interview room. Matsumoto stated that Det. McCumsey, after going over a waiver of rights form with him, proceeded to interview him about the events of that morning, told him he would have to take a polygraph test,3 and then returned him to his cell.

The next morning Det. McCumsey escorted Matsumoto to a polygraph room, he testified, where she introduced him to Det. Kuaana before leaving the room.4 Det. Kuaana gave Matsumoto a polygraph waiver form, Matsumoto stated, that indicated Matsumoto would be provided with the results of the polygraph immediately following the conclusion of the examination. Det. Kuaana then put electrodes on Matsumoto and hooked him up to the polygraph machine, he testified. Det. Kuaana asked a series of questions, unrelated to the events resulting in Matsumoto’s arrest, to calibrate the polygraph. Among other things, Det. Kuaana asked Matsumoto about his divorce and told Matsumoto to say he was holding a $5 bill when he was holding a $20 bill. Det. Kuaana then showed Matsumoto the results, Matsumoto stated, pointing out where the machine indicated Matsumoto was untruthful.

Matsumoto testified that Det. Kuaana then interviewed him regarding the events of the previous day. Matsumoto stated that, upon completion of the test, Det. Kuaana removed the electrodes and told Matsumoto that he did not pass the polygraph test. Det. Kuaana never used the term "inconclusive," Matsumoto testified, and he did not show Matsumoto the test results.

According to Matsumoto, Det. Kuaana continued to interrogate him and refused to accept his answers, stating that "there had to have been more on the basis that [Matsumoto] had failed the polygraph [test]." Matsumoto testified that Det. Kuaana told him that he needed to make another statement, and then told Det. McCumsey upon her return that Matsumoto wished to speak with her.

Following the conclusion of Matsumoto’s testimony, Det. McCumsey testified. Det. McCumsey stated that she initially asked Matsumoto if he would be willing to take a polygraph test because she offers every suspect who denies committing a crime the opportunity to take an examination. She testified that she believed Det. Kuaana told her that the results of Matsumoto’s polygraph test were inconclusive when she returned to the polygraph room after the test had concluded. Det. McCumsey stated that, following the polygraph examination, she brought Matsumoto to an interview room, obtained a waiver of his Miranda rights, and interrogated him a second time.

Det. Kuaana testified that there are three phases to a polygraph examination: the pre-test, the in-test, and the post-test--the last of which includes further interrogation "if someone doesn’t pass an exam or fails an exam." Before giving Matsumoto constitutional warnings, Det. Kuaana stated, he explained the three phases to Matsumoto and said that he would give him the results of the examination during the post-test phase. He did not tell Matsumoto that the post-test phase could include further interrogation.

Det. Kuaana testified that during the pre-test phase he discussed with Matsumoto the difference between truth and lies, the test questions, and the allegations against him. The detective stated that, during this phase, he interacted with Matsumoto as though he believed Matsumoto was innocent and that it was his job to assist him in getting through the process. Det. Kuaana testified that he also explained to Matsumoto during the pre-test phase how a polygraph works, informing him that it "is a pass/fail test, either you pass or you don’t."

After conducting a practice test, Det. Kuaana testified, he moved on to the in-test phase. He testified that he asked Matsumoto a series of questions regarding the allegations against him and determined that the results of the polygraph test were "inconclusive," meaning that Matsumoto’s "score" was "right in the middle" and did not fall within the range needed to pass or to fail the examination. Det. Kuaana testified that he nonetheless told Matsumoto that he "did not pass the test." He did not tell Matsumoto that the test was inconclusive, but he testified that he believed his statement was accurate because "for the sake of the polygraph, an inconclusive result is not passing."

Det. Kuaana stated that he then moved to the post-test phase, in which he began to ask accusatory questions and told Matsumoto that he knew Matsumoto was not telling him the truth. He explained that he intentionally shifted his attitude during this post-test phase as "an interrogation tactic":

When I go into the post-test phase, obviously I have results from my polygraph; he didn’t pass. I know there’s some other things about the case, so then it becomes more accusatory. I become more confident in my accusations. It’s no longer about whether or not you’ve done it; we know you did it. It’s just a question of why did you do it.

Det. Kuaana testified that throughout the polygraph test, Matsumoto appeared to be in "disbelief" and was calm in a way that indicated that Matsumoto could not believe he was in the position that he was in. The State rested following the conclusion of Det. Kuaana’s testimony.5

Matsumoto argued that because the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible at trial under Hawai‘i caselaw, he would be unable to explain the basis and context of the statements he made during the in-test and post-test phases of the polygraph examination, and accordingly these statements should be inadmissible. Matsumoto also argued that his statements during the post-test phase should be suppressed because they were the result of Det. Kuaana intentionally leading him to falsely believe that he had failed the polygraph examination, which is an issue extrinsic to the facts of the case, and his statements were thus per se coerced and inadmissible under Hawai‘i law.6

In response, the State argued that, although results of a polygraph test are inadmissible, the omission of the circumstances surrounding Matsumoto’s statements should not render the statements inadmissible because they were supported by valid waivers of Matsumoto’s constitutional rights. Matsumoto’s statements, the State contended, were not obtained through coercion or trickery. According to the State, Det. Kuaana did not lie when he told Matsumoto that he did not pass the polygraph examination because the results were inconclusive and did not indicate that Matsumoto had passed.7

The circuit court orally denied the motion to suppress at the conclusion of the hearing and later issued findings of fact and conclusions of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Baker
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 18, 2020
    ......Accordingly, "[t]he constitutional right against self-incrimination prevents the prosecution's use of a defendant's extrajudicial admissions of guilt where such admissions are the product of coercion." State v. Matsumoto , 145 Hawai‘i 313, 324, 452 P.3d 310, 321 (2019) (quoting Kelekolio , 74 Haw. at 502, 849 P.2d at 69 ). The reasons for barring coerced confessions include "the inherent untrustworthiness of involuntary confessions, a desire that criminal proceedings be accusatorial rather than inquisitorial[,] ......
  • State v. Glenn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 30, 2020
    ......Matsumoto , 145 Hawai‘i 313, 328, 452 P.3d 310, 325 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). Inherent in the promise of due process is the fundamental principle that a defendant who, due to mental illness, lacks the capacity to conform their conduct to the law, or understand that their conduct was wrongful, ......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 30, 2020
    ......Matsumoto , 145 Hawai‘i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019) (citing State v. McCrory , 104 Hawai‘i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004) ). "Under this standard, ‘[t]he relevant question .. is whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to [the] conviction.’ " Id. ......
  • State v. Armitage
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Hawai'i
    • October 22, 2021
    ......Once it has been determined that evidence was erroneously admitted, the appellate court must consider whether the erroneous admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Matsumoto , 145 Hawai‘i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019) (citing State v. McCrory , 104 Hawai‘i 203, 210, 87 P.3d 275, 282 (2004) ); see State v. Apo , 82 Haw. 394, 403, 922 P.2d 1007, 1016 (App. 1996) ("The admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial following the erroneous denial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...the Hawaii court held lying to a suspect by telling him he failed a polygraph rendered a confession involuntary. State v. Matsumoto , 452 P.3d 310 (Haw. 2019). The opinion contains an extensive discussion of research regarding how false claims that someone failed a polygraph can be coercive......
  • Suppressing involuntary confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...of a pouch containing syringes that if she confessed she would only be charged with misdemeanors, not a felony. State v. Winger , 452 P.3d 310 (Ct. App. OH 2017). Statements made during an interrogation that the suspect will not be prosecuted render a confession involuntary. People v. Perez......
  • Other grounds for suppressing confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...results to the suspect, this may form the basis for suppression due to coercing a post-polygraph confession. State v. Matsumoto , 452 P.3d 310 (Haw. 2019). §12:44 Litigation Tips Review your state statutes regarding when polygraph results may be disclosed. If your state’s statute is similar......
  • Other grounds for suppressing confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • April 1, 2022
    ...results to the suspect, this may form the basis for suppression due to coercing a post-polygraph confession. State v. Matsumoto , 452 P.3d 310 (Haw. 2019). §12:44 Litigation Tips Review your state statutes regarding when polygraph results may be disclosed. If your state’s statute is similar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT