State v. Su
| Decision Date | 15 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-18-0000692 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Joo Rim SU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Jonathan Burge, Honolulu, for petitioner
Sonja P. McCullen, Honolulu, for respondent
Samuel Joo Rim Su ("Su") was convicted of Operating a Vehicle under the Influence of an Intoxicant ("OVUII"). At trial, his counsel sought to impeach the credibility of one of the State's witness, Honolulu Police Department ("HPD") Officer Jared Spiker ("Officer Spiker"), under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence ("HRE") Rule 608(b). That rule states, in relevant part, as follows:
Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking the witness’ credibility, if probative of untruthfulness, may be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness and, in the discretion of the court, may be proved by extrinsic evidence. ...
Defense counsel contended that the "specific instances of conduct" evincing Officer Spiker's untruthfulness were contained in transcripts from three other proceedings in which Officer Spiker was a witness for the State: State v. Kuni, State v. Lee, and State v. Thomas. The District Court of the First Circuit ("district court")1 did not allow defense counsel to cross-examine Officer Spiker concerning these proceedings, ruling that none were probative of Officer Spiker's untruthfulness.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") upheld the evidentiary rulings in a summary disposition order ("SDO"). State v. Su, CAAP-18-0000692, 2019 WL 2296467 ( SDO ) at 5. The ICA further stated that the district court "was able to review all the materials" submitted by defense counsel concerning the Kuni, Lee, and Thomas proceedings. Su, SDO at 6. Therefore, the ICA held, the district court "had ‘in its possession sufficient information to appraise the biases and motivations of the witness’ and did not abuse its discretion by preventing further cross-examination of Officer Spiker" concerning his testimony in those proceedings. Id.
We accepted certiorari to clarify that admissibility of evidence under HRE Rule 608(b)2 involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the specific conduct evidence proffered for the "purpose of attacking the witness’[s] credibility" is "probative of untruthfulness," and, if so, (2) whether the probative value of the specific conduct is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence pursuant to HRE Rule 403. An appellate court reviews the trial court's two-step admissibility determination under the right/wrong standard as to the first step, and under the abuse of discretion standard as to the second step. We also accepted certiorari to correct the ICA's SDO to the extent that it suggests that a trial court can consider excluded evidence in reaching judgment.
We therefore vacate the ICA's July 2, 2019 Judgment on Appeal, as well as the district court's August 2, 2018 Judgment. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On January 24, 2018, the State charged Su via Complaint with one count of OVUII, in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3) (2007).3
On May 1, 2018, Su filed three Notices of Intent to Use Impeachment Evidence against the State's witness, Officer Spiker. The first notice of intent informed the court that Su intended to use extrinsic evidence, in the form of transcripts of a proceeding, from an unrelated ADLRO hearing involving Respondent Selina Kuni, to show that Spiker had "admitted to submitting a false sworn statement" to ADLRO. The transcript read as follows, with emphasis added:
(Some emphases added.)
In the second notice of intent, Su asked the district court to take judicial notice of the records and files in an unrelated OVUII case, State v. Lee. He intended to use, as extrinsic evidence, testimony Officer Spiker provided about how the defendant in that case, Michelle Lee, had been driving on the wrong side of the road. The judge in the Lee case, Judge Lanson Kupau, specifically found that Officer Spiker's testimony did not make "physical sense" and acquitted the defendant. Spiker's testimony had proceeded as follows:
On cross-examination, the defense attorney elicited the following testimony from Officer Spiker about his observations of the defendant's driving:
At the close of evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that Officer Spiker's testimony "just doesn't make sense." Defense counsel argued there should have been a collision between the defendant and Officer Spiker if, as Officer Spiker testified, (1) both were separated by a distance of 20 yards; (2) he was traveling at 25 miles an hour; (3) she was traveling at 35 miles an hour; (4) the defendant was "three to five yards" over the double solid yellow line, meaning in Officer Spiker's lane of travel; and (5) Officer Spiker observed her driving towards him for four to eight seconds. The district court granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, stating the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial