84 Hawai'i 229, State v. Soto
Decision Date | 28 February 1997 |
Docket Number | 18704,Nos. 18673,s. 18673 |
Parties | 84 Hawai'i 229 STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sara SOTO, also known as Sarah Soto, Sara Chavez, Sara Toral and Sarah Toral, and Kathy Hughes, Defendants-Appelles. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Dana S. Ishibashi, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee Sara Soto.
Theodore Y.H. Chinn, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee Kathy Hughes.
Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ.
On October 20, 1993, an O'ahu grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Soto in Cr. No. 93-2594, charging her with promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree in violation of HRS § 712-1241(1)(b)(ii)(A) (1993) (Count I), 3 criminal solicitation of first degree murder in violation of HRS §§ 705-510, see supra note 1, and 705-512, see supra note 2 (Count II), and criminal conspiracy to commit promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree, allegedly with her codefendant, Kathy Hughes, in violation of HRS § 705-520 (1993) (Count III). 4
The manner in which the circuit court interpreted the events giving rise to the indictment in Cr. No. 93-2594 and construed certain penal statutes is at the heart of this appeal. The relevant facts, gleaned from the During the late 1980s or early 1990s, Eric Lau, who was Hughes's biological father, began working as a confidential informant for the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). Lau's responsibility entailed gathering evidence for cases "involving organized crime and target[ing] individuals involved in gambling, narcotics, extortion or some kind of organized crime." Lau's HPD supervisor was Detective David Brown.
[84 Hawai'i 233] transcripts of the hearings on Soto's motions, establish the following background.
In 1991 or 1992, Hughes introduced Lau to Soto, who was Hughes's lover. Eventually, Soto and Hughes moved from Honolulu to Los Angeles, where they maintained intermittent contact with Lau.
Lau testified that, when he first met Soto, she informed him of certain criminal charges pending against her in Hawai'i in Cr. No. 90-0212. With respect to these charges, Soto allegedly advised Lau that there was a particular witness, Jerry Lewis, whom she was looking for somebody to "take ... fishing and never come back." Lau eventually relayed this information to Detective Brown. In response, Detective Brown instructed Lau to "further the discussions in regards to the murder-for-hire case."
The criminal charges pending against Soto in Cr. No. 90-0212, which were unrelated to the present appeal, arose out of charges of attempted promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree and criminal conspiracy. Reinette Cooper was appointed as defense counsel to represent Soto in the case. Cooper filed a motion to suppress evidence on Soto's behalf, and hearings were scheduled for March 24 and 27, 1992. Detective Brown instructed Lau to attend the hearings to "find out the results" of the motion and to reestablish contact with Soto. Apparently, Detective Brown believed that, in the event Soto lost the motion to suppress in Cr. No. 90-0212, it would be imperative to ascertain Soto's subsequent efforts, if any, to locate "the witness against her and have him killed." Lau attended the hearing on Soto's motion and sat in the first row behind the defense table. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court denied Soto's motion to suppress, and Lau left the courtroom with Cooper, Soto, and Hughes and followed them into the adjoining hallway.
The testimony is unclear as to precisely what transpired in the hallway. Although she could not recall the specifics of her conversation with Soto, Cooper testified that they generally "discuss[ed] what we had to do now ... that the motion was denied, ... how the trial would be pursued[,] ... and what the various options would have been." Cooper considered the conversation to be, "I guess, privileged," insofar as she was "not in a habit of telling the prosecutors or the police what me and my client are planning." Cooper recalled, at the time, seeing "Lau with his head being in there, you know, around [Soto] and [Hughes] and I."
For her part, Soto testified that
[Cooper] was always concerned ... that I should consider a plea bargain, ... all the time asking me that I should consider a plea bargain. I always told her no, ... I would not consider a plea bargain because I'm not guilty about it and I wanted the case to go to trial.... [W]e were discussing who we would bring more or less to the trial because we had gone to trial on it prior.
Soto emphasized that she had not been aware that Lau was a confidential informant and that she had not knowingly waived the privileged character of her conversation with Cooper. In this connection, Soto testified that she had not consented to Lau standing next to her, that Hughes had "tried to move her father [i.e., Lau] away," but that Lau had "insisted on being there."
On the other hand, Lau testified that, following the conclusion of the hearing, Lau also testified that, although he was not certain as to the source, it was Soto who had remarked to Hughes that "we got to work hard now." 5 Other than this remark Finally, Detective Brown testified that Lau had not provided "any information regarding what Cooper was going to do in the future in terms of her legal representation of ... Soto." In an attempt to clarify his testimony, Detective Brown stated that Lau had not recounted anything that Cooper, Soto, or Hughes had said to him, but, rather, what Lau had heard Hughes say to others.
[84 Hawai'i 234] and a comment by Soto that "she'd call" him later, Lau did not recall anything else of substance that either Cooper or Soto had said.
A year and a half later, on October 20, 1993, the grand jury returned the three-count indictment--Cr. No. 93-2594--against Soto and Hughes that is at issue in this appeal. Specifically, the indictment charged as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. White
...of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 144, 931 P.2d 580, 586 (1997) (some brackets added and some in original)[; s]ee also State v. Soto, 84 Hawai`i 229, 236, 933 P.2d 66, 73 (1997). Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established When construing a statute, our foremost obligation ......
-
State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc.
...penal statutes narrowly, [we analyze] them in the light of precedent, legislative history, and common sense." State v. Soto, 84 Hawai`i 229, 249, 933 P.2d 66, 86 (1997) (citing State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai`i 127, 137, 890 P.2d 1167, 1177 (1995)). "[T]he strict construction rule does not permi......
-
Flor v. Holguin, No. 22641.
...of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 144, 931 P.2d 580, 586 (1997) (some brackets added and some in original). See also State v. Soto, 84 Hawai`i 229, 236, 933 P.2d 66, 73 (1997). Furthermore, our statutory construction is guided by established rules: When construing a statute, our foremost obliga......
-
Brown v. Thompson
...of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 144, 931 P.2d 580, 586 (1997) (some brackets added and some in original). See also State v. Soto, 84 Hawai`i 229, 236, 933 P.2d 66, 73 (1997). State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai`i 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai`i 85, 90, 976 P.2d ......
-
Say what? Confusion in the courts over what is the proper standard of review for hearsay rulings.
...of the hearsay rule."). (250) See Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Hawaii, Inc. v. Mijo, 950 P.2d 1219, 1228 (Haw. 1998) (citing State v. Soto, 933 P.2d 66, 73 (Haw. 1997)) ("A trial court's findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, whereas its conclusions of law are rev......
-
Preliminary matters
...in the presence of third parties may not be intended to or reasonably expected to remain conidential.” State v. Soto , 84 Hawaii 229, 239 933 P.2d 66, 76 (Hawaii 1997) (quoting U.S. v. Melvin , 650 F.2d. 641, 645-56 (5 th Cir. 1981). A sharp defense attorney who learns of a third-party’s pr......