State v. Baker
| Decision Date | 18 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-16-0000115 |
| Citation | 465 P.3d 860 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mustafa BAKER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Dwight C.H. Lum, Honolulu, for petitioner
Sonja P. McCullen, Honolulu, for respondent
In this case, we are called upon to determine whether one of our most critical procedural safeguards, the constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, was upheld.
The appeal involves the admission at trial of a confession, given by the defendant during the course of a custodial interrogation. Because we find that the tactics used by the interrogating police officer were so coercive that they rendered the defendant's statement involuntary, we hold that it should not have been admitted against him at trial.
Mustafa Baker was arrested on January 8, 2013, based upon allegations that on December 31, 2012, he committed assault in the first degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-710.1 Baker was subsequently indicted in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) on two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of HRS § 707-730(1)(a)2 and one count of sexual assault in the third degree pursuant to HRS § 707-732(1)(f).3
The State filed a Motion to Determine Voluntariness of Defendant's Statement to Law Enforcement (motion to determine voluntariness) in accordance with HRS § 621-26.4 In its motion, the State argued that a statement Baker gave to Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Detective (Det.) Brian Tokita during the course of a custodial interrogation on January 8, 2013, was voluntarily given and should be freely admissible at trial. A hearing on the motion was held at which Det. Tokita testified about the circumstances of Baker's custodial interrogation, which occurred on the day Baker was arrested.5 Det. Tokita testified that before commencing the interrogation he read a standardized form to Baker that informed him of his constitutional rights. Baker said that he understood his rights, Det. Tokita stated, and then signed the form indicating that he waived his rights. Det. Tokita testified that the HPD was in possession of an audio recording and a written transcript of the interrogation, which were introduced into evidence. The court took the State's motion under advisement pending its review of the audio recording and transcript.
The audio recording of the interrogation discloses that the interrogation proceeded as follows. Det. Tokita began the interrogation by asking Baker several introductory questions, such as his date of birth, level of educational attainment, age, and place of employment. Baker stated that he was 23 years old and was currently employed at a bakery, but he had only completed the eighth grade. Baker did not know his home address, but he indicated that he was living in Waimanalo and knew the name of the street on which he lived.
Det. Tokita then informed Baker that he had "been working on this case from the time it started," that Baker "clearly" did not "know what [Tokita] kn[e]w about this case," and that Baker should "trust [him]" when he tells Baker that he "know[s] a lot about what happened." Det. Tokita informed Baker that he knew Baker met the complaining witness (CW) on New Year's Eve in the Kailua District Park. The detective next told Baker "now here's your chance, tell me what happen[ed] from there in detail." Baker responded that he was drinking liquor in the park with his sister KK6 and the CW, and GK arrived there and "did something" with the CW.7 Baker explained that This had occurred, Baker said, when he went with his friends LKG and JKG to get cigarettes. When he returned,
Det. Tokita interrupted and told Baker Baker then admitted that he was trying to protect GK, and explained that GK was bloody when he arrived back at the park. Det. Tokita interrupted Baker again, stating "I know that's ... not how it went." Baker responded that he would not have sexually assaulted someone because he was "raped as a kid."
Det. Tokita expressed that Baker was a "straight up guy" because, while Baker had a record as a juvenile, he did not have a record as an adult. Continuing with a friendly tone, Det. Tokita stated, Without pausing, Det. Tokita then accused Baker and GK of beating the CW and further accused Baker of "put[ting] [his] penis in her vagina, and [GK] did after [Baker] and [Baker] came back and [ ]did it again." Baker responded "Woah" to this accusation.
Det. Tokita then offered another mitigating narrative to Baker, saying Then, Det. Tokita stated "Alcohol is.... where people get themselves into trouble, cause they lose their inhibitions[.]" The detective continued, After again discussing Baker's juvenile record, Det. Tokita assured Baker that, compared to other offenders, he was not a "bad dude." Baker replied. the detective said. Baker again denied committing a crime, repeating his assertion that he was "not like that." Returning to the mitigating narrative, Det. Tokita stated "Yeah," Baker responded. Det. Tokita continued, Before Baker could respond, Det. Tokita warned,
Continuing the interrogation, Det. Tokita changed tactics again, warning Baker about what it "sounds like on the outside." "The girl's a minor," Det. Tokita stated. Baker answered "That's not me[,]" and Det. Tokita replied, Baker again said, "I'm not like that," prompting Det. Tokita to tell him,
Det. Tokita then asked Baker, "When you go to court, you think people want to hear somebody that's going to fucking deny, deny when the evidence is like insurmountable against them, but they're just going to deny, deny to the bitter end." "No," Baker responded, and Det. Tokita continued, Baker said that people would want to hear the truth, and then Det. Tokita warned, "I don't want to be jerked around."
At this juncture Baker had not admitted to any criminal activity, and the detective changed course. Det. Tokita told Baker,
Baker repeated his statement that he did not beat the CW, which prompted Det. Tokita to respond, Baker again repeated that he did not beat the CW. Det. Tokita returned to the sexual assault allegation, telling Baker, Then, for the first time, Baker admitted to having sex with the CW, explaining, "[c]ause I was all fucked up." "You wasn't thinking straight," Det. Tokita offered, to which Baker said, After this Baker again denied beating the CW, stating that GK beat her with a bottle.
Det. Tokita then provided a sequence of events, accusing Baker of having sex with the CW against her will three times. The detective stated that first Baker had vaginal sex with the CW, then GK had vaginal sex with her, then Baker returned and had anal sex and vaginal sex with the CW. "That's why I know there's physical evidence that you guys cannot deny because there's DNA in there and you know that DNA's one of [a] kind," Det. Tokita said. After Baker replied "Yeah," Det. Tokita stated, "Exactly, so I know what happened already, cause there's physical evidence."
Baker again stated that he "did not beat her up." This prompted Det. Tokita to ask, "so you admit you fucked her, penis in vagina?" Baker said "Yes." Det. Tokita followed this admission by trying to get Baker to adopt the detective's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gonzalez
...have come to the same conclusion about the dangers of false statements inducing false confessions. See, e.g., State v. Baker, 147 Hawai'i 413, 465 P.3d 860, 878-79 (2020) (recognizing "that false claims of physical evidence result in an unsettling number of false or involuntary confessions"......
-
State v. Griffin
...or maximization tactics may be deemed so egregious as to be sufficient in and of itself to establish coercion.9 See State v. Baker , 147 Haw. 413, 435, 465 P.3d 860 (2020) ("a single coercive interrogation technique may render a confession involuntary"). Because these tactics, however, are ......
-
Erum v. Llego
... ... Order also noted that the motion to dismiss was brought pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 16 and 37, but it did not state the rule(s) on which the oral motion to dismiss was granted. The Dismissal Order instead stated that the court's decision was made after "review[ing] ... ...
-
People v. Stewart
... PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA LAMAR-JAMES STEWART, Defendant-Appellant. No. 162497 Supreme Court of Michigan July 31, 2023 ... defendant's inculpatory statements were made of a free ... and voluntary mind. See State v Baker , 147 ... Hawai'i 413, 431-432; 465 P.3d 860 (2020) (finding that ... "misrepresentations about the existence of ... ...
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...coercive interrogation tactic and its use is a strong indicator that the suspect’s statement was involuntary.” State v. Baker , 465 P.3d 860, 879 (Haw. 2020). In State v. Gonzalez , 268 A.3d 329 (N.J. 2022), Justice Albin wrote a concurring opinion which noted that although false evidence p......
-
FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED CONFESSIONS.
...(falsely telling suspect that accomplice inculpated him). (80) 476 S.E.2d 153, 158 (S.C. 1996). (81) Id. (82) But see State v. Baker, 465 P.3d 860, 878-79 (Haw. 2020) (finding coercion in a case where police made repeated "misrepresentations about the existence of incontrovertible physical ......
-
Chapter 4 False Admissions: Interrogations and Confessions
...conviction, and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619896608. State v. Baker, 465 P.3d 860 (Haw. 2020). State v. Cayward, 552 So.2d 971 (Fla. App. 1989). State v. Kelekolio, 849 P.2d 58 (Haw. 1993). Stewart, J. M., Woody, W. D., & P......