State v. Baker

• Decision Date: 27 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. SCWC–11–0000666.,SCWC–11–0000666.
• Citation: 319 P.3d 1009,132 Hawai'i 1
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Kaolino Richard BAKER, Petitioner/Defendant–Appellant.

132 Hawai'i 1

319 P.3d 1009

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Kaolino Richard BAKER, Petitioner/Defendant–Appellant.

No. SCWC–11–0000666.

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

Jan. 27, 2014.

James S. Tabe, for petitioner.

Linda L. Walton, Kealakekua, for respondent.

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, and POLLACK, JJ., with ACOBA, J., Concurring Separately.

Opinion of the Court by RECKTENWALD, C.J.

Kaolino Richard Baker (Baker) was charged with one count of Abuse of Family or Household Member in relation to an incident involving his former girlfriend. During a pre-trial hearing, Baker, represented by a deputy public defender, stated that he had executed a "Waiver of Jury Trial" form. On the form, Baker provided his initials next to all of the relevant paragraphs, except the paragraph stating that he was entering the waiver of his own free will and that no promises or threats had been made to him in order to induce his waiver of his right to a jury trial. During a brief exchange, the family court asked Baker several questions, none of which addressed the voluntariness of his waiver.

Following a bench trial, Baker was convicted of the charged offense. Baker appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) and argued, inter alia, that the family court erred in failing to ensure that he had "fully" waived his right to a jury trial. The ICA, however, affirmed his conviction and determined that under the totality of the circumstances, Baker validly waived his right to a jury trial.

In his application for writ of certiorari, Baker raises the following questions: (1) whether he validly waived his right to a jury trial; (2) whether the family court erred in considering a written police report not admitted into evidence in determining his guilt; (3) whether the family court erred in considering the same police report during sentencing; and (4) whether the ICA erred in suggesting that Baker seek relief pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) with respect to the family court's purported consideration of the police report. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the family court failed to ensure that Baker's waiver of his right to a jury trial was voluntary. We therefore vacate both the ICA's judgment and the family court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. Given this disposition, we do not address Baker's arguments relating to the police report, and the ICA's suggestion that Baker seek relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40.

I. Background

The following factual background is taken from the record on appeal.

A. Family court proceedings

Baker was charged with Abuse of Family or Household Member, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709–906(1).¹ At a February 23, 2011 Entry of Plea hearing, Baker, represented by a deputy public defender (DPD), pled not guilty.² The DPD then stated that Baker had executed a "Waiver of Jury Trial" form. The form provided as follows:³

1. I waive my right to a jury trial in the following charge(s):

AFHM ^[4]

PLEASE PLACE YOUR INITIALS IN THE SPACES PROVIDED IF YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS

2. ____ I understand that I have the constitutional right to a jury trial. Furthermore, I unde[rstand] that a jury trial is a trial in the Circuit Court before a judge and a jury and that I can partic[ipate] in the process of selecting a jury of twelve (12) citizens from the Third Circuit. This jury w [ould hear] the evidence in my case and then decide if I am guilty or not guilty. Finally I understand [in] order for me to be convicted by a jury, their vote must be unanimous.

3. ____ I know that if I give up my right to a jury trial, the trial will be held in this Court be[fore a] judge who alone would decide if I am guilty or not guilty. I request that my case be tried [before a] judge.

...

4b. ____ I am satisfied with my attorney, and am entering this waiver with his her advice.

5. ____ I know that the punishment cannot be increased merely because I want a jury trial.

6. ____ I am entering this waiver of my own free will after careful consideration. No promises or threats have been made to me to induce me to waive my right to a jury trial.^[5]

Baker's initials appear in the spaces next to paragraphs 2, 3, 4b, and 5, but do not appear in the space next to paragraph 6. Baker signed his name below paragraph 6. Below Baker's signature, the form included the following language:

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

As counsel for defendant and as an officer of the Court, I certify that I have read and explained fully the foregoing, that I believe that the defendant understands the document in its entirety, that the statements contained therein are in conformity with my understanding of the defendant's position, that I believe that the defendant's waiver is made voluntarily and with intelligent understanding of the nature of the charge and possible consequences, and that the defendant signed this form in my presence.

Baker's counsel signed below this paragraph. During the entry of plea hearing, the following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: You're Kaolino Baker?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm looking at a document, and showing it to you, entitled "Waiver of Jury Trial." It's two pages. Is that your signature on the back?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: And you signed this on February 23, 2011?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about this document?

MR. BAKER: No.

THE COURT: In the last 24 hours have you had any alcohol or any drugs or medicine?

MR. BAKER: No.

THE COURT: Is your mind clear?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: You speak and understand the English language?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have—you've gone over this with your lawyer so far?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to hand this back to you and have you sign this, that you acknowledge that we went over this in open court and you know what you're doing. Okay?

The Court will order you to return here on March 23rd at 8:30 a.m. for pretrial conference.

[DPD]: Thank you.

Baker again signed the form below the following language: "I acknowledge that ... Judge A. Wilson questioned me personally in open court to make sure that I knew what I was doing and understood this form before I signed it."

The family court held a bench trial on June 8, 2011, and August 10, 2011,⁶ at the conclusion of which the family court determined that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Baker committed the offense of Abuse of Family or Household Member. Accordingly, the family court entered its Judgment, Guilty Conviction and Sentence finding Baker guilty, and sentencing him to two years of probation.⁷ Baker timely filed a notice of appeal.

B. ICA Appeal

In his opening brief, Baker argued, inter alia, that the family court plainly erred in failing to ensure that he had "fully" waived his right to a jury trial. Specifically, Baker argued that he did not "knowingly and voluntarily" waive his right to a jury trial. Baker noted that the waiver form "was not adequately filled out," and that the family court "failed to conduct a colloquy to ensure that Baker knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial."

In its answering brief, the State argued that Baker's waiver of his right to a jury trial was sufficient because he executed a written waiver and stated in a colloquy that he understood what he was doing after discussing it with his attorney.

The ICA issued a memorandum opinion affirming the judgment of the family court. The ICA held that, under the totality of the circumstances, Baker validly waived his right to a jury trial. The ICA noted that Baker had submitted the waiver of jury trial form, had been questioned by the family court, and that nothing in the record suggested that Baker had been pressured or coerced into waiving his right to a jury trial. The ICA also rejected Baker's other arguments on appeal. On July 16, 2013, the ICA entered its judgment on appeal, and, on September 16, 2013, Baker timely filed his application for writ of certiorari. On September 25, 2013, the State timely filed its response.

II. Standard of Review

The validity of a criminal defendant's waiver of his or her right to a jury trial presents a question of state and federal constitutional law.... We answer questions of constitutional law by exercising our own independent constitutional judgment based on the facts of the case. Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the right/wrong standard.

State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 67, 996 P.2d 268, 272 (2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

III. Discussion

In his application, Baker argues that the family court did not adequately ensure that his waiver of his right to a jury trial was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Baker asserts that the waiver form was not properly executed, and that the family court's colloquy was "woefully deficient." For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the family court failed to ensure that Baker's waiver of his right to a jury trial was voluntary and that Baker is therefore entitled to a new trial.

"Trial by jury is considered fundamental to our system of criminal justice." State v. Pokini, 55 Haw. 640, 656, 526 P.2d 94, 108 (1974). Accordingly, "[t]rial by jury is the normal and, with occasional exceptions, the preferable mode of disposing of issues of fact in criminal cases above the grade of petty offenses." Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 312, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930), abrogated in part on other grounds, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) ; see also United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 383 n. 18, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982). In general, a criminal defendant is entitled to a trial by jury when the potential penalty for the charged crime is imprisonment for six months or more.⁸ See HRS § 806–60 (1993). To help ensure that a defendant is aware of his right to a jury trial, HRPP Rule 5(b)(1) provides that, during arraignment, "the court shall, in...