State v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 30 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 7384,7384 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christine DOYLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Rule 12(e) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure provides that "a motion to suppress made before trial shall be determined before trial," for the purpose of providing the prosecution with the opportunity, prior to trial, to appeal a ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress which is adverse to the State.
2. Where the parties have stipulated to a joint hearing on the motion to suppress and the trial on the merits, the government will not be foreclosed from exercising its statutory right to appeal from an adverse ruling of the trial court on the motion to suppress.
3. Where the trial court at a bench trial expressly advises the parties, for the record, of its intention to hear the motion and the merits contemporaneously and no objection is voiced by either party to the proposed procedure, the trial court may then proceed to hear the issues contemporaneously.
4. If a joint hearing is held on a motion to suppress and the trial on the merits, the trial court should enter its ruling on the motion to suppress before finally determining the merits of the charge against the defendant.
5. Rule 12(e) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure provides that "(w)here factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record."
Anne Randolph, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu, on briefs, for defendant-appellant.
Arthur Ripley, Jr., Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and OGATA, MENOR, LUM and NAKAMURA, JJ.
The defendant was convicted at a bench trial in the district court of the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree under HRS § 712-1249. She appeals from the judgment and sentence of the trial court. We affirm.
The only issue 1 which merits this court's consideration is whether the trial court erred in directing that the defendant's motion to suppress and the trial on the merits be heard contemporaneously.
The federal courts have taken the position that pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see United States v. Thompson, 558 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1977), and Rule 41(e) & (f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Evalt v. United States, 382 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1967), the trial court has the discretionary authority to defer hearing and determination of a motion to suppress made before trial until the trial itself. Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules provides:
A motion made before trial shall be determined before trial unless the court, for good cause, orders that it be deferred for determination at the trial of the general issue or until after verdict, but no such determination shall be deferred if a party's right to appeal is adversely affected.
On the other hand, Rule 12(e) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure expressly provides that "a motion to suppress made before trial shall be determined before trial." The reason given for this difference between the Federal and Hawaii rules is to provide the prosecution with the opportunity, prior to trial (and pursuant to HRS § 641-13(7) ), to appeal a ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress which is adverse to the State. 2 This court has held, however, that where the parties have stipulated to a joint hearing on the motion to suppress and the trial on the merits, the government will not be foreclosed from exercising its statutory right to appeal from an adverse ruling of the trial court on the motion to suppress. State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44, 609 P.2d 131 (1980).
Accordingly, we hold that where the trial court at a bench trial expressly advises the parties, for the record, of its intention to hear the motion and the merits contemporaneously and no objection is voiced by either party to the proposed procedure, 3 the trial court may then proceed to hear the issues contemporaneously. The trial court should, however, enter its ruling on the motion to suppress before finally determining the merits of the charge against the defendant. Cf. Id. Moreover, we remind the trial courts that "(w)here factual issues are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the record." H.R.P.P. Rule 12(e).
Affirmed.
1 Based on the record in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress marijuana found in the pocket of a jacket being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- 78 Hawai'i 262, State v. Pone
-
State v. Chang
...the record. In State v. Doyle , the defendant did not object to the consolidation of her suppression hearing and trial. 64 Haw. 229, 231 n.3, 638 P.2d 332, 334 n.3 (1981). On appeal, this court rejected the defendant's challenge to the consolidation, holding that:12 [W]here the trial court ......
-
In re Doe
...motion to suppress be held prior to trial is to allow the State to appeal an adverse ruling on a motion to suppress.3 In State v. Doyle, 64 Haw. 229, 638 P.2d 332 (1981), the Hawai`i Supreme Court Rule 12(e) of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure expressly provides that "a motion to suppres......
-
State v. Yihong Zhang
...Id. at 553, 445 P.3d at 134 (referring to conclusions in State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44, 609 P.2d 131 (1980), and State v. Doyle, 64 Haw. 229, 638 P.2d 332 (1981) ). Here, the parties did not agree to hold a consolidated suppression hearing with trial, and the District Court confirmed at the ......