State v. Culkin
| Decision Date | 30 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 22394.,22394. |
| Citation | 35 P.3d 233,97 Haw. 206 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy J. CULKIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Deborah L. Kim, Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Caroline M. Mee, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Timothy J. Culkin ("Culkin") appeals from a first circuit court jury trial, the Honorable Melvin K. Soong presiding, convicting Culkin of reckless manslaughter, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-702(1)(a) (1993 & Supp.2000),1 and reckless endangering in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 707-714 (1993).2 Culkin is currently serving an indeterminate term of twenty years of incarceration and a concurrent term of one year.
On appeal, Culkin raises the following points of error: (1) the circuit court committed plain error by giving confusing and misleading instructions to the jury, instructions that failed to include a "self-defense-as-justification-for-reckless-manslaughter" instruction; (2) the circuit court erred by allowing the prosecution to impeach Culkin with pending forgery charges, thus forcing him to assert his fifth amendment privilege in front of the jury; (3) the circuit court erred by excluding evidence relevant to Culkin's self-defense position; (4) the juror questioning violated evidentiary rules and Culkin's right to a fair trial; and (5) the circuit court erred by excluding Culkin's father from the courtroom because of the prosecution's "impromptu" designation of him as a rebuttal witness.
We hold that the jury instructions were prejudicially misleading, prejudicially confusing, and likely contributed to the reckless manslaughter conviction. Accordingly, we vacate Culkin's conviction of and sentence for the offense of reckless manslaughter.3 To provide guidance on remand, we address Culkin's remaining points of error. Cf. State v. Davia, 87 Hawai`i 249, 252, 953 P.2d 1347, 1350 (1998)
. In so doing, we further hold: (1) that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecution to cross-examine Culkin about multiple false identification cards discovered at his house with foreknowledge that Culkin intended to invoke his fifth amendment privilege if questioned about them; and (2) that the circuit court erred by concluding that the prior reckless use by his brother, Thomas Culkin, of a .44 caliber revolver was not relevant to the reasonableness of Culkin's apprehension of danger on the morning of July 27, 1997. Culkin's remaining points of error are without merit.
The prosecution charged Culkin with committing murder in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 707-701.5 (1993), and reckless endangering in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 707-714 (1993).
On the morning of July 27, 1997, a police officer responding to a disturbance in a residential area of `Aiea, in the City and County of Honolulu, encountered Jayne Suarez ("Suarez") kneeling in front of a house and Culkin walking across the front yard carrying what appeared to be a rifle case. Culkin notified the officer that his brother was unconscious inside the house. The officer discovered Thomas Culkin ("Thomas") lying on the upstairs floor. Thomas was transported to Pali Momi hospital and pronounced dead shortly after his arrival. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be injury to the heart from a stab wound to the chest.
Suarez later testified that she went with Thomas to the residence, which she knew to be Culkin's house, early that morning. After entering the house through a back door, Suarez went into a bedroom. Shortly thereafter, she heard footsteps from upstairs. Culkin appeared and looked into the room. Upon seeing Suarez, Culkin turned to Thomas, who was outside the bedroom, and began to yell about "[w]hy he brought somebody over and that—that he didn't keep his promise about not bringing anybody over [to] the house[.]" Thomas responded by swearing and yelling at Culkin. The verbal argument soon escalated into a physical altercation.
From her vantage point, Suarez saw the brothers grapple past the bedroom doorway. They rolled to the ground. Culkin attempted to stop the fight by calling out for Thomas to "stop, stop already." Shortly thereafter, the brothers broke apart. Thomas continued to push and swear at Culkin, attempting to instigate further fighting. Culkin turned and walked up a flight of stairs leading to the second story of the house. Thomas quickly followed. Suarez could hear the brothers continue to yell at each other upstairs. Culkin repeatedly yelled at Thomas to leave the house. Suarez then heard a loud scream followed by "I can't believe you did this to me."4 Culkin again said, "I want you guys out of my house" and came downstairs armed with a handgun. He said "beat it, bitch" to Suarez, who promptly ran out of the house. Culkin followed her and fired the pistol into the air when she reached the rear gate.
Culkin testified that, upon discovering Suarez inside of the house, he became very angry with Thomas. Approximately two weeks earlier, Culkin had offered Thomas a bedroom at the house on the condition that Thomas promise that he would not bring any of his friends over. Culkin explained that Thomas's friends were "drug addicts, ex-cons, thieves." Culkin knew Suarez to be "a thief and an ice addict."
According to Culkin, Thomas suddenly and unexpectedly charged at him. The brothers had fought before, Culkin eventually escaped and ran up the stairs towards the kitchen. Culkin grabbed a small knife sitting on a counter, exited the kitchen, and stopped in the hallway in front of his bedroom.
Culkin testified that When asked what he thought Thomas intended, Culkin explained:
I thought he was going to either kill me or seriously really hurt me `cause it was like—we had been in fights before. But this was different. He was strong. I mean, when I threw him against the wall, it doesn't even phase him.... He just got more mad.... He was going for blood. He was going for my throat, my eyes. He was going for anything that he could do.
However, Culkin testified that even after seeing the knife, Thomas charged at him. He said, "I could like see [Thomas] make a decision like I'm going to charge him, forget the knife." Thomas grabbed Culkin's throat. Culkin stabbed around or under Thomas's arms, with no effect. Culkin then stabbed twice towards Thomas's stomach, stopping the attack.
Culkin testified that he then went into his bedroom to grab a .44 caliber revolver that belonged to Thomas. He explained that he persuaded Thomas to let him hold on to the gun after witnessing Thomas repeatedly use the weapon in a reckless and threatening manner. However, he had notified Thomas that, "[i]n case you ever need it, it's right here, it's in my room." Culkin explained that his primary concern was simply to get the weapon "away" from Thomas.
After obtaining the pistol, Culkin heard noise downstairs and chased Suarez out of the house. He then returned to his bedroom to remove his "gun case." Culkin testified that he did not stop to check on Thomas at that time because "I had no idea he was hurt that bad." Culkin testified that he intended to place the gun case inside his garage and then return to check on Thomas. The police arrived while Culkin was outside with the gun case.
At trial, a toxicologist testified that Thomas's blood contained, among other substances, 3.66 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood. According to the toxicologist, it would be "highly unusual" for a person to have this level of methamphetamine in their system and still be "walking around." An expert in the field of methamphetamine intoxication and analysis testified that the level of methamphetamine in Thomas's blood greatly exceeded the lethal dose for a person of Thomas's size.
State v. Gomes, 93 Hawai`i 13, 18, 995 P.2d 314, 319 (2000) ().
"We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant." Gomes, 93 Hawai`i at 18, 995 P.2d at 319 (citing State v. Cullen, 86 Hawai`i 1, 8, 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1997)); see also Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 52(b) (1993) ().
We apply two different standards of review in addressing evidentiary issues. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, unless application of the rule admits of only one correct result, in which case review is under the right/wrong standard.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Malone
...Carter v. State, 250 Ind. 13, 234 N.E.2d 650 (1968); Rudolph v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 293 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 1980); State v. Culkin, 97 Hawai`i 206, 35 P.3d 233 (2001); State v. Hays, 256 Kan. 48, 883 P.2d 1093 (1994); Transit Auth. of River City v. Montgomery, 836 S.W.2d 413 (Ky.1992); C......
-
Kapuwai v. Honolulu, Dept. of Park and Rec.
...(providing guidance to the circuit court regarding evidentiary matters, i.e., the exclusion of an expert witness); State v. Culkin, 97 Hawai`i 206, 35 P.3d 233 (2001) (addressing evidentiary matters to provide guidance to the circuit court on remand); State v. Mahoe, 89 Hawai`i 284, 972 P.2......
-
State v. Diaz
...of the rule admits of only one correct result, in which case review is under the right/wrong standard." State v. Culkin, 97 Hawai`i 206, 213, 35 P.3d 233, 240 (2001) (citations omitted). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disre......
-
State v. Deedy
...and defense of others justifications will have a more limited application. See generally HRS § 703-310 (1993); State v. Culkin, 97 Hawai'i 206, 216, 35 P.3d 233, 243 (2001) (" HRS § 703–310 quite plainly instructs that self-defense is not available as justification where a defendant believe......