State v. Brooks

• Citation: 264 P.3d 40,125 Hawai'i 462
• Decision Date: 21 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. 29605.,29605.
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Curtis Ray BROOKS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Hawai'i

125 Hawai'i 462

264 P.3d 40

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Curtis Ray BROOKS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 29605.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

Oct. 21, 2011.

As Corrected Dec. 2, 2011.

William H. Jameson, Jr., On the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.

Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, On the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

NAKAMURA, Chief Judge, and FOLEY and LEONARD, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by NAKAMURA, C.J.

Defendant–Appellant Curtis Ray Brooks (Brooks) and Sistine Rangamar (Rangamar) were charged with the murder, kidnapping, and robbery of Ted Arifuku (Arifuku). Rangamar gave a statement to the police shortly after his arrest. In his statement, Rangamar admitted that he had assaulted, restrained, and robbed Arifuku, but also asserted that his actions had been pursuant to a plan devised by Brooks and implicated Brooks in Arifuku's murder. Rangamar committed suicide before trial.

Brooks filed a pre-trial motion in limine, seeking authorization to introduce at trial selected portions of Rangamar's statement that incriminated Rangamar. Brooks sought to introduce these self-incriminating portions of Rangamar's statement to bolster his claim that Rangamar was solely responsible for the offenses committed against Arifuku.

Plaintiff–Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State) argued that if Brooks was allowed to introduce the self-incriminating portions of Rangamar's statement, then the State should be allowed to introduce other portions of the statement that incriminated Brooks, pursuant to the "rule of completeness" set forth in Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence ( HRE) Rule 106 (1993).¹ Brooks countered that the self-incriminating portions of Rangamar's statement were admissible as statements against penal interest, pursuant to HRE Rule 804(b)(3) (1993),² but that the admission of the portions of Rangamar's statement that incriminated Brooks would violate Brooks's constitutional right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)³ determined that the self-incriminating portions of Rangamar's statement that Brooks sought to introduce, when taken in isolation, were "likely to mislead the jury and to distort the content and context of Rangamar's entire statement." The Circuit Court also concluded that " Crawford does not bar the introduction of evidence required under HRE Rule 106." The Circuit Court ruled:

Once [Brooks] makes the tactical decision to introduce the selected portions of Rangamar's statement to the police, he will waive or forfeit any claim that the introduction by the State of the portions of the statement necessary to prevent the jury from being misled pursuant to HRE Rule 106 violates the Confrontation Clause.

At trial, Brooks introduced selected self-incriminating portions of Rangamar's statement, and the State was permitted to introduce other portions of Rangamar's statement under HRE Rule 106. The jury found Brooks guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter and guilty as charged of kidnapping and robbery.

As his sole issue on appeal, Brooks argues that the Circuit Court erred in ruling that by introducing selected portions of Rangamar's statement, Brooks waived or forfeited any claim that the State's introduction of the portions of the statement necessary to prevent the jury from being misled pursuant to HRE Rule 106 violates the Confrontation Clause. We affirm the Circuit Court's decision.

BACKGROUND

I.

On January 15, 2007, an apartment manager opened the door to Arifuku's apartment and found Arifuku lying face down on the floor with his hands tied behind his back. Arifuku was dead. Arifuku had bruises and cuts on his face and bruises on his scalp, neck, chest, back, arms, and legs. Based on Arifuku's autopsy, Gayle Suzuki, M.D., Deputy Medical Examiner for the City and County of Honolulu, determined the cause of death to be "asphyxia

due to neck compression, due to manual strangulation."

Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Detective James Anderson (Detective Anderson) was assigned to investigate Arifuku's death. In Arifuku's apartment, the police recovered a homemade utility knife, consisting of an "X–Acto" blade wrapped in a cigarette package, next to Arifuku's body; a blue cap that was on the bed; $2,002 from a wallet in pants hanging inside a closet on the door; and various quantities of what appeared to be methamphetamine and marijuana located in drawers.

On January 16, 2007, the day after Arifuku's body was discovered, Detective Anderson learned that an FBI agent had received information about the case from Patty Estabilio (Estabilio), Brooks's aunt by marriage. After being apprised of this information, Detective Anderson began looking for Brooks. Detective Anderson spoke to Estabilio over the phone on January 16, 2007, and he later held in-person interviews with Estabilio and her roommate, Amy Katten (Katten), at their apartment. Katten identified a cap that Detective Anderson showed her at the police station as belonging to Brooks. Both Estabilio and Katten testified at Brooks's trial.

According to Estabilio, she encountered Brooks by chance in 2006 and learned that she was his aunt. Brooks would frequently visit her apartment, and they developed a relationship of trust and were able to confide in each other. Prior to January 13, 2007, Brooks told Estabilio on several occasions that he wanted to rob Arifuku because Brooks thought Arifuku had a load of "ice" (crystal methamphetamine) and money. At the time Brooks made these statements, Estabilio did not believe that Brooks was serious, but when she heard that Arifuku had been killed, she immediately thought that Brooks had done it. Estabilio talked to Katten who called an FBI agent they both knew. A short time after Estabilio learned about Arifuku's death, Brooks told Estabilio that Brooks "did something that he couldn't fix."

According to Katten, she met Brooks and found out he was related to Estabilio. After Katten and Estabilio learned that Arifuku had died, Brooks, while alone with Katten, told her that "I did something that I cannot undo."

In January 2007, Brooks was homeless and living out of a van parked on Mahi‘ai Street just off of Date Street. Estabilio provided Detective Anderson with the location of the van. On January 24, 2007, Brooks was found in his van and was arrested. The van was secured and towed to the main police station. Brooks provided Detective Anderson with Rangamar's name, and Detective Anderson began looking for Rangamar as an additional suspect in the case.

On February 5, 2007, the police located Rangamar and his girlfriend, Naliki Christopher (Christopher), and arrested Rangamar. On that day and again on the following day, Detective Anderson interviewed Christopher. Christopher also testified at trial.

According to Christopher, she had been in a long-term relationship with Rangamar. Christopher and Rangamar met Brooks in January 2007 through Brooks's girlfriend, "Honey Girl," who was Christopher's friend. At that time, all four of them were using ice, and Christopher and Rangamar were living in a tent at Ala Wai Park, which was not far from where Brooks's van was parked. Rangamar's birthday was January 13th. Prior to January 13, 2007, Christopher heard Brooks discuss with Rangamar a plan to rob Arifuku. Brooks knew Arifuku and said that Arifuku was a drug dealer who sold ice and was disabled. Brooks drew a floor plan of Arifuku's apartment in Brooks's sketchbook, which was introduced at trial. Under Brooks's plan, Rangamar was to knock Arifuku out, then signal Brooks that it was okay for Brooks to come in by turning on the light in front. Brooks said he was a "good friend" of Arifuku and therefore knew where things were in Arifuku's apartment.

Christopher testified that on January 13, 2007, Brooks came to the tent in the morning, wished Rangamar "Happy Birthday," and left with Rangamar. Brooks later returned to the tent without Rangamar. Christopher went to get something to eat and Brooks tagged along. When they came back, they found Rangamar lying in the tent. Rangamar was bleeding from cuts on his "right lap," wrist, and ankle, and he was upset with Brooks. Rangamar asked Brooks why he had not come into Arifuku's apartment when Rangamar turned on the light and opened the door. Brooks asked Rangamar, "where's the money," "where was the drugs," and if Arifuku was dead or not.⁴

Rangamar explained that he went into Arifuku's apartment and tried to knock Arifuku out, but they got into a struggle, during which Arifuku got a hold of a knife and stabbed Rangamar. Brooks had earlier placed the knife in Rangamar's pocket. Eventually, Rangamar was able to incapacitate Arifuku and tie him up.

Christopher saw Rangamar give Brooks $300 to $400, which was roughly half of the amount of money that Rangamar said he had taken from Arifuku. Rangamar did not have any drugs to split with Brooks. Rangamar later confided to Christopher that he had obtained more money from Arifuku than Rangamar had disclosed to Brooks. Brooks indicated that he thought there were drugs and more money in Arifuku's apartment. Brooks left the tent and came back with Honey Girl, and they all smoked ice. Brooks and Honey Girl then left the tent. When they returned, they had a lot more ice. Brooks stated that he had gone by Arifuku's apartment "to go check and see" and that he "went go choke ‘em one more time." When Brooks said that, his girlfriend, Honey Girl, pinched him and said, "why you got to say it like that for?".

II.

On February 7, 2007, Rangamar waived his Miranda rights and made a recorded statement to Detective Anderson. Rangamar's recorded statement included the following information.

Rangamar reported that Brooks had first discussed a plan to rob Arifuku before January 13, 2007. At that time, Brooks drew a layout of Arifuku's apartment in an "art book." However, Rangamar turned Brooks down because Rangamar...