80 Hawai'i 251, State v. Medeiros

• Decision Date: 20 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 17307,17307
• Citation: 909 P.2d 579,80 Hawaii 251
• Parties: 80 Hawai'i 251 STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander MEDEIROS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

Page 579

909 P.2d 579

80 Hawai'i 251

STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander MEDEIROS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17307.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.

Dec. 20, 1995.

Reconsideration Denied Jan. 9, 1996.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 29, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is within the trial court's discretion to decide to call its own witnesses after the parties have rested in a criminal case.

2. Because Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 614(a) provides that the court "may" call its own witnesses, the Rule plainly vests the judge with the discretion to do this. A trial court's decision to call its own witnesses under HRE Rule 614(a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

3. In calling its own witnesses under HRE Rule 614(a), a court must ensure that it acts impartially so as not to abridge the defendant's right to a fair trial.

4. We believe the fundamental tenet that judges must act impartially would suffice as the practical measure of a trial court's discretion in calling witnesses. Because conduct can only be evaluated in the context in which it takes place, whether the exercise of a court's power to call its own witness was partial can only be answered by reference to the specific circumstances of each case.

5. The trial court should exercise caution in calling witnesses for the ostensible benefit of the defendant after the parties have rested and where the defendant objects to the court's calling of further witnesses. It is to be presumed that defense counsel has investigated the facts of the case and is cognizant of what is in the defendant's best interest. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we cannot say that the court acted in a partial manner and thus abused its authority in calling witnesses under HRE Rule 614.

6. HRE Rule 614(b) provides that a court may interrogate witnesses called by the court itself. Thus, a trial judge's questioning of a witness is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. In the present case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in his questioning of the witnesses in the defendant's jury-waived trial.

7. Generally, on appeal, we will not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence or interfere with a trial judge's determination of the witnesses' credibility or the weight of the evidence.

Renee N. Costa, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.

Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BURNS, C.J., and WATANABE and ACOBA, JJ.

ACOBA, Judge.

On July 2, 1993, Defendant-Appellant Alexander Medeiros (Defendant) was found guilty in a jury-waived trial of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (DUI) in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4(a) (Supp.1992). ¹ The trial court entered its judgment on July 2, 1993. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 19, 1993. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I.

Defendant was charged with DUI on October 24, 1992 after his vehicle was involved in an automobile accident at the intersection of Vineyard Boulevard and Punchbowl Street in Honolulu on the island of O'ahu. At trial, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (the State) and the defense stipulated that Defendant's intoxilyzer test result established that he was intoxicated, and the issue before the court was limited to whether Defendant was driving the vehicle in question. Defendant claimed that a person by the name of John Matthews (Matthews) was driving Defendant's automobile when the accident occurred. We examine the following relevant evidence adduced at Defendant's jury-waived trial.

In the early morning hours of October 24, 1992, Officer Alfred Prado (Officer Prado) of the Honolulu Police Department was on duty and was dispatched at approximately 2:00 a.m. to the scene of the accident. Upon arriving, the officer observed Defendant "yelling and screaming that a female in the other car was hurt and that an ambulance [was] needed." Officer Prado testified that he approached Steven Nakano (Nakano), the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, who informed him that "he [ (Nakano) ] had run a red light" and identified Defendant "as the driver of that vehicle that he struck."

According to Officer Prado, Defendant said that he "was making a left turn with a green arrow" when the other vehicle struck his vehicle. The officer maintained that Defendant told him "he was the driver of the vehicle" and that he was the "only person in that vehicle." While speaking to Defendant, Officer Prado noticed a "moderate to strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from [Defendant's] breath[,]" and placed Defendant under arrest for DUI. After arresting Defendant, Officer Prado related that Defendant exclaimed, " 'I can't believe it. I had the green arrow, and I still get arrested.' "

Officer Peter Nakagawa (Officer Nakagawa) arrived on the scene shortly after Officer Prado to provide assistance. Officer Nakagawa testified that Defendant was "apparently one of the operators of a motor vehicle" because "Officer Prado informed [him] of that fact." Officer Nakagawa recounted that Defendant "stated [Defendant] was driving" and that the name "John Matthews" was never mentioned while the officer was at the scene.

Nakano testified that he was asked who was "[w]ith the other vehicle" and pointed to Defendant. Contrary to Officer Prado's testimony, Nakano stated the officers never asked him to identify the driver of the other vehicle. He did not see who drove Defendant's automobile.

Arthur Bowley (Bowley) and Rebecca Kamakawiwiole (Kamakawiwiole), acquaintances of Defendant, both reported that earlier that evening, they had driven Defendant to the bar where Defendant's girlfriend Linda Cornelius (Cornelius) worked. The three of them (Defendant, Bowley, and Kamakawiwiole) were at Bowley's home when Cornelius called and informed Defendant that a buyer was interested in purchasing Defendant's car. Bowley and Kamakawiwiole gave Defendant a ride to the bar where Defendant's car was parked. They both observed Defendant enter the bar and then leave with a "hauole [sic] guy" ² who took the driver's seat of Defendant's vehicle. Defendant sat in the passenger seat. Bowley and Kamakawiwiole related that they followed Defendant's car to Piikoi [Pi'ikoi] Street and then parted with Defendant's car when they turned right to take the freeway onramp "toward Kaimuki [Kaimuki][.]" Bowley testified that they separated from Defendant's automobile at "one-something" in the morning. Bowley and Kamakawiwiole did not see the accident.

Cornelius confirmed that she had asked Defendant to come to the bar because "one of [her] customers had come in and told [her] that his roommate was interested in buying our [ (Cornelius and Defendant's) ] car." Cornelius testified that the interested buyer, Matthews, "came in about 12:30" and that they talked about selling the car. Because Matthews "wanted to test drive" Defendant's vehicle, Cornelius called Defendant at Bowley's house and asked Defendant to come down to the bar. She stated that Defendant arrived at "about 1:30" a.m.

Defendant reiterated that Bowley and Kamakawiwiole drove him to the bar to meet a potential buyer for Defendant's automobile. At the bar, Cornelius introduced Matthews to Defendant, and gave Defendant the car keys. According to Defendant, Matthews asked to drive the vehicle and "got in[to] the driver's seat" while Defendant "got in[to] the passenger seat." Defendant stated that Bowley and Kamakawiwiole followed them until Bowley and Kamakawiwiole turned "right to go to H-1 [K]oko [H]ead bound." ³ Defendant asserted that Matthews was still driving the car when the accident occurred. Defendant indicated that after the accident, "John [Matthews] said he was gonna go [sic] and call for help, and took off" in the direction of Queen's Hospital, which was nearby. However, Matthews never returned. Defendant further reported that Officer Prado asked him, " 'Is this your vehicle[?]' " and he replied " 'Yes, I'm the owner of this vehicle.' " Defendant "didn't remember [Officer Prado] saying [Defendant] was the driver of the vehicle" nor did he recall being asked whether he was the driver. When Officer Prado asked Defendant to take a field sobriety test, Defendant related that, "I told 'em [sic]--I told Prado, 'Eh, [sic] I wasn't the driver of the vehicle,' " and that Officer Prado responded " 'Oh, no. We're just gonna [sic] give you a sobriety test just for the hell of it.' "

Defendant disclosed that he had consumed alcohol at Bowley's house that evening. On direct examination, Defendant testified that he told two other officers that Matthews was driving his car, but he did not know the names of the officers. Defendant also recalled telling a sergeant and another officer at the scene that "there was another man driving [his] vehicle." Defendant did not recall speaking to Officer Nakagawa.

On cross-examination, Defendant remembered that he "told [Sergeant William] Watkins and one [sic] other police officer, that it was John Matthews [who] was the ... driver."

The court questioned Defendant regarding Defendant's belief that the officers were "testifying falsely because they kn[e]w other officers on the scene who [did not] like [Defendant] much[.]" When the court asked whether Defendant remembered the names of such officers, Defendant stated he "recognized" the officers based on prior dealings with them, but could not recall their names. On further redirect examination by defense counsel, Defendant stated that out of the "ten" police officers at the scene, he had had prior contact with "three" of them, but not with Officers Prado and Nakagawa.

Defense counsel then recalled Officer Nakagawa, who identified "[him]self, Officer Prado, Sergeant Watkins, ... Sergeant [Mark] Kajiwara" and "[o]ne or two" transport officers as the officers present at the scene. The...