State v. David

• Citation: 149 Hawai‘i 469,494 P.3d 1202
• Decision Date: 09 September 2021
• Docket Number: SCWC-19-0000319
• Court: Supreme Court of Hawai'i
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter DAVID, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

149 Hawai‘i 469

494 P.3d 1202

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

v.Peter DAVID, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-19-0000319

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

SEPTEMBER 9, 2021

Taryn R. Tomasa, for petitioner

Brian R. Vincent, for respondent

NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ.; AND RECKTENWALD, C.J., DISSENTING

OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.

On the night of New Year's Day 2011, Peter David killed his cousin Santhony Albert. The two had been drinking at family gatherings. They fought outside a relative's apartment. David stabbed Albert. David said he acted in self-defense.

A jury convicted David of assault in the first degree. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.

David challenges the trial court's ruling preventing him from advancing evidence of Albert's .252 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level unless he called an expert to explain its meaning.

We hold that the trial court erred in conditioning the BAC evidence on such expert testimony. Excluding the BAC evidence undercut David's constitutional right to present any and all competent evidence to support his defense. It violated David's due process right to a fair trial.

We vacate David's conviction for assault in the first degree and remand the case to the circuit court.¹

I. BACKGROUND

This was David's second jury trial.² In his first trial, David faced a murder in the second degree charge.³ The jury convicted him of manslaughter. Because the trial court had admitted improper rebuttal testimony, this court vacated David's conviction. State v. David, 141 Hawai‘i 315, 317, 409 P.3d 719, 721 (2017).

On retrial, the prosecution called several of David and Albert's relatives. David also testified.⁴

David and Albert spent New Year's Day socializing with family members. Like most of the men at the family gatherings, they drank alcohol. Late in the evening, the cousins fought in a parking lot fronting a family member's apartment. David stabbed Albert. Albert died.

Before the fatal altercation, David and Albert were drinking in the apartment. David testified he asked Albert for a beer. Albert responded by punching him in the face. He also struck David with a beer bottle and boasted, "you see, I can beat you up." Albert's comment appeared connected to an earlier incident at a different family member's apartment. There, David explained, he went outside. Albert followed him and taunted: "[W]hat [are you] looking at[?] ...[Y]ou want me to beat you up[?]" David said he ignored Albert. He knew Albert was "drunk."

David testified that not long after Albert punched him and hit him with a beer bottle, Albert went downstairs to the parking lot. He called David to meet him there. David did, but only to ask Albert to return to the apartment, not to fight. David said Albert kicked and punched him. David fell facedown; he was pinned between two cars. Albert stood above him. Albert continued to kick and punch him. David said he feared for his life. He felt "very scared" and thought he was "going to die from what [Albert was] doing."

David told the jury he acted in self-defense. He "grabbed something." He swung the object behind him toward Albert. When asked about his state of mind, David explained: "I was protecting myself, thought that something was going to happen to me. So that's –– that's why I did that, not knowing at what he was going to –– what the assault was going to be." David insisted he "was just trying to protect [him]self from injury, continuing threat ... in a moment of rush."

David was unsure whether he contacted Albert with the object. But Albert stopped hitting him. Albert ran away. David followed. Soon, he saw Albert walking to the apartment with help from another relative. He saw Albert fall to the ground. David left; he later learned that Albert had died.

The next day, a forensic pathologist performed an autopsy. Albert's blood was drawn and tested. The toxicology report showed that Albert's BAC was .252.

At David's first trial, the State presented BAC evidence testimony from the forensic pathologist. She informed the jury: "[Albert] did have alcohol, and the level was .25 percent."

The second trial was different. This time, the State moved in limine to preclude admission of the .252 BAC evidence. The trial court ruled that the presence of alcohol in Albert's blood was admissible. But the court prevented any references to the "actual number." It reasoned:

With respect to the toxicology result performed on Santhony Albert as part of the autopsy that was conducted by the Honolulu Medical Examiner's office, the Court denies State's motion in limine. The presence of blood alcohol level in ... Mr. Albert's body is relevant and corroborative of testimony that is going to be presented in this case. So the fact that there is alcohol in the decedent's blood is admissible.

The actual number, though, the .252, the Court is going to preclude, unless there's linkage, unless there is going to be some kind of testimony that will explain what the .252 means or does or how it affects the particular decedent in this case. So that's a very high bar, I think, because alcohol has different effects on different people.

And how drunk the decedent might have been is available to both parties by way of lay testimony and the percipient witnesses that observed the decedent on the date of the offense.

(Emphases added.)

Before the forensic pathologist testified, David moved the court to reconsider its ruling. The court denied the motion:

The actual [BAC] number does provide the opportunity for the jury to speculate and perhaps even be confused because without any expert testimony to explain the meaning of the number, it is, in this Court's opinion, speculative. As indicated by [the State], alcohol affects people differently. In addition to tolerance of individuals, their weight and their metabolic makeup also affect the ability to process alcohol in a person's system and therefore minimize or enhance the effect of any particular blood alcohol on that person. So without any anchoring testimony to explain the number, it is in fact speculative.

And with respect to common understanding as to the legal limit for driving, while .08 is the legal limit established by the legislature to delineate the line in the sand as to whether or not a person is operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, it really doesn't point out to the amount of impairment that person is actually experiencing. At one point in time, the legal limit not too long ago was .10, and for other states, it has been a different number, and again, that number, without some anchoring testimony, is speculative and does not add anything to the jury's consideration of the case.

So based on [Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (HRE)] Rule 403, [David's] request is respectfully denied.

(Emphasis added.) The court further ruled that defense counsel could not ask the forensic pathologist whether there was a "high level of alcohol" in Albert's blood.⁵

The expert then testified that Albert's blood contained alcohol; she did not reference his BAC or generally describe the level of alcohol in his blood.⁶

David's defense centered on his account of what happened. It also featured a Honolulu Police Department officer's testimony. Officer Violet Williams recounted an unconnected incident where an intoxicated Albert acted aggressively and irrationally toward her and other officers. Officer Williams testified that she responded to a "fight call" in November 2008. About twenty people were yelling at each other in a parking lot. As she was instructing everyone to leave, Albert approached her from behind. He pushed her left arm. He yelled, "fuck you, you bitch." He called her "pig" and other vulgarities. Officer Williams described Albert's demeanor as "extremely irate," "uncooperative," and "disrespectful." She smelled alcohol on his breath; he "appear[ed] to be intoxicated." When she tried to arrest Albert, he resisted. After he was placed in a police car, he kicked toward Officer Williams and other officers.

During closing argument, defense counsel spotlighted Albert's drunken, aggressive behavior to support David's defense:

[W]e know how [Albert] is when he's drunk, intoxicated. This is circumstantial evidence as to who is first aggressor in this case.

At another time how was [Albert] acting when he was intoxicated, even to a police officer? He's drunk, he's argumentative, he's belligerent, he's swearing. This is a window, circumstantial evidence as to what Santhony Albert was on this particular January 2nd, 2011. He was the first aggressor, ladies and gentlemen.⁷

The jury heard evidence about David and Albert's drinking. The witnesses generally discussed that "the men" at the family gatherings were drinking. But no witness testified about the quantity and frequency of Albert's alcohol consumption. And only one witness (aside from David) described Albert's condition as "drunk."⁸ Albert's BAC - the only evidence objectively quantifying the extent and degree of Albert's intoxication – was kept from the jury.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The probative value of the BAC evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing or misleading the jury or unfairly prejudicing the State

Neither the trial court nor the ICA believed the BAC evidence was irrelevant. Rather, its preclusion was based on the defense's failure to hire an expert to explain its meaning.

We conclude that defense expert testimony was not necessary to admit Albert's .252 BAC.⁹ The typical adult citizen has the aptitude to understand, weigh, and value the reasonable inferences drawn from a decedent's .252 BAC in a self-defense case. This ability comes from jurors’ common knowledge and life experience regarding BAC and alcohol's association with aggression. The trial court's concern about confusing or misleading the jury was misplaced. The court erred in requiring expert testimony about Albert's BAC and its behavioral impact.

1. Albert's .252 BAC was highly probative to David's defense

...