State v. Stone

Citation465 P.3d 702
Decision Date15 June 2020
Docket NumberSCWC-17-0000078
Parties STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kentaru Kristopher STONE, also known as Kentaro K. Stone, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
CourtSupreme Court of Hawai'i

Shawn A. Luiz, Honolulu, for petitioner

Brandon H. Ito (on the briefs), for respondent

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

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.
I. Introduction

This appeal arises from a jury trial in the First Circuit of the Circuit Court ("circuit court")1 in which Kentaru Kristopher Stone ("Stone") was convicted by a jury on the charge of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree.

At around 3:45 a.m. on April 5, 2016, Stone was approached at Ala Moana Beach Park by Honolulu Police Department ("HPD") Officer Douglas Korenic II ("Officer Korenic"). Stone was seated on a picnic table with various items strewn around him, including one or more identification cards ("IDs"). Based on discovery provided by the State of Hawai‘i ("State"), Officer Korenic's testimony was anticipated to be that he approached Stone for a park closure or rules violation, that Stone would not provide information regarding his identity, and that Stone then threw a small "baggie" containing methamphetamine, which landed on the picnic table.

Based on provided discovery, defense counsel's theory of the case during opening statement was that, because the only found property report related to an iPhone, the other items on the picnic table shown in photographs belonged to Stone and included Stone's ID. Defense counsel theorized that Officer Korenic's testimony that he had been unable to ascertain Stone's identity would therefore be untruthful. The defense theory was also that Officer Korenic had searched Stone's bag and had strewn Stone's belongings all over the table, as shown in the photographic exhibits; that Officer Korenic must have planted the methamphetamine baggie after rifling through Stone's bag or that the methamphetamine baggie was already there but did not belong to Stone; and that Officer Korenic did not seek a search warrant for the bag because, based on his search, he already knew there was no drug paraphernalia therein.

During trial, however, Officer Korenic, who was the only witness to Stone's alleged methamphetamine possession, testified in cross-examination that in addition to the found property report regarding the iPhone, he had generated additional found property reports as to the other miscellaneous items on the picnic table, including other people's IDs. He also testified the IDs and other items on the picnic table did not belong to Stone.

The circuit court therefore called a mid-trial recess. The State procured and the defense reviewed additional police reports referenced in Officer Korenic's incident report that had not been produced in discovery. The additional reports referenced in the incident report were, however, completely unrelated to Stone's case. Yet, in his resumed testimony, Officer Korenic persisted in his testimony that additional found property reports existed pertaining to Stone's case.

The jury found Stone guilty of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree.

Stone moved for a new trial pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure ("HRPP") Rule 33 (2012),2 arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because he had expected no dispute that the ID on the picnic table belonged to him. This was because discovery had not indicated items other than the iPhone belonged to others. On December 27, 2016, the circuit court denied Stone's motion for new trial, sentenced Stone to a five-year term of imprisonment, and entered its judgment on January 18, 2017.

Stone appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"), arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial. He asserted he met this court's four-part test for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 588 P.2d 438 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Raines v. State, 79 Hawai‘i 219, 900 P.2d 1286 (1995).3 He also asserted he met the ICA's four-part test for a new trial based on false testimony from a material prosecution witness. See State v. Teves, 5 Haw. App. 90, 679 P.2d 136 (1984).4 Stone also argued his right to a fair trial was violated.

In its November 27, 2019 summary disposition order, the ICA rejected Stone's arguments, ruling the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial because Stone failed to satisfy the McNulty and Teves tests. See State v. Stone, CAAP-17-0000078, 2019 WL 6359162 (App. Nov. 27, 2019) ( SDO ). The ICA did not address this court's opinion in Birano v. State, 143 Hawai‘i 163, 426 P.3d 387 (2018), which was issued after Stone's 2017 reply brief, but before its SDO.

We hold the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court's denial of the motion for new trial because Stone satisfied the Teves test. Because the Teves test governs the circumstances of this case, we need not and do not address whether Stone satisfied the McNulty test.

We also hold Stone's right to a fair trial was violated because, as the ICA correctly noted, Officer Korenic testified falsely concerning the existence of other found property reports. As there is a reasonable possibility the false testimony contributed to Stone's conviction, however, the ICA erred in ruling it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, we vacate the ICA's February 5, 2020 judgment on appeal and the circuit court's January 18, 2017 judgment of conviction and sentence, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Factual and procedural background
A. Circuit court proceedings
1. Charge and pretrial

On April 6, 2016, Stone was charged via felony information with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (2014).5

The State provided five HPD reports to the defense in discovery. These reports, identified as Court's Exhibits A through E, were included in the record for appellate purposes only. Court's Exhibit A is Officer Korenic's April 5, 2016 four-page incident report numbered 16-136877, which listed six "Related Reports/Comments" numbered 16-121055, 16-121057, 16-121058, 16-121059, 16-121060, and 16-121061 ("six related reports") on its face page, and two related reports numbered 16-136880 (park closure) and 16-136878 (found property) in the narrative of the report. Court's Exhibit B is Officer Korenic's follow-up report numbered 16-136877. Court's Exhibit C is Officer Korenic's April 5, 2016 two-page incident report numbered 16-136880, which listed related reports numbered 16-136877 (Court's Exhibit A) and 16-136878 (Court's Exhibit D). Court's Exhibit D is an April 5, 2016 found property report numbered 16-136878 that lists an iPhone. Court's Exhibit E is a one-page handwritten found property report (or receipt) numbered 16-136878, listing only an iPhone (Court's Exhibits D and E are collectively referred to as the "iPhone Found Property Report").

2. Jury trial

The circuit court held a jury trial on October 27 and 28, 2016.

a. Opening statements

In its opening statement, the State described what the evidence would show:

Knowingly possess. Ladies and gentlemen, what the evidence is going to show us through the course of this trial is that on April 5th, 2016, the defendant knew that he possessed methamphetamine, and that he tried to hide it.
On April 5th, 2016 at about 3:45 in the morning, Officer Douglas Korenic was on patrol, and we're going to meet him during this trial and he's going to tell us about how that day he was patrolling the Ala Moana Beach Park here in Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and at that time he observed this defendant sitting at a park bench. Well, not at a park bench, he was on the bench. He was sitting on the table, on the picnic table, with his feet on the bench. There's things on the table.
And Officer Korenic is going to tell us how he approached the defendant. He started asking him some questions and he's talking to the defendant, when all of a sudden the defendant makes a arm gesture. He uses his arm and he flicks away a small baggie, which Officer Korenic knows and recognizes from his training and experience as a Honolulu Police Department officer, it contains a white crystalline substance, and he recognizes this substance to possibly be crystal methamphetamine.
....
And ladies and gentlemen, what the evidence is going to show you is that that substance was, in fact, crystal methamphetamine, and even more so, that on April 5th, 2016, this defendant knew he had it, and then he tried to hide it. Thank you.

In her opening statement, defense counsel explained the defense theory of the case:

Now, at 3:45 in the morning, at Ala Moana Beach Park, I mean, it's still dark, it's not the safest place to be at that time. You will see a picture, and in that picture it will show Mr. Stone's belongings, including his identification, various debit cards, credit cards, store cards, strewn all over the table. Use your reason and common sense. Would anybody have all of their property thrown all over the table at 3:45 in Ala Moana Beach Park all by himself? He's not the biggest guy. You can see him.
The evidence will show that the very people charged with protecting us planted –- well, rifled through his belongings, and who knows, the baggie might have been there before, but it was not in Kentaru Stone's possession. He did not know it was there.
I ask you to pay specific attention to those pictures because the pictures are neutral; they don't take any sides, they just show what is.
And the evidence will show that Mr. Stone, he probably upset the officers. He has difficulty in hearing and in speaking, so when Officer Korenic approached him and asked for his identification, he probably didn't respond. But Officer Korenic will testify that he was on bike patrol. He came across Mr. Stone at approximately 3:45 in the morning. He started asking him for his identification,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Bringas
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2021
    ...of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Stone, 147 Hawai‘i 255, 270, 465 P.3d 702, 717 (2020) (citations omitted).IV. DISCUSSIONBringas challenges the circuit court's reading of the verdicts without first addr......

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