State v. Hewitt

• Docket Number: SCWC-16-0000460
• Decision Date: 15 March 2023
• Citation: 153 Hawai‘i 33,526 P.3d 558
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cyrina L. HEWITT, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

153 Hawai‘i 33

526 P.3d 558

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

v.Cyrina L. HEWITT, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-16-0000460

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

March 15, 2023

Taryn R. Tomasa for petitioner

Christopher K. Rothfus for respondent

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

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

This appeal addresses Miranda rights arising out of police questioning of a person confined to a hospital bed. Cyrina Hewitt ("Hewitt") was charged in the District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division ("district court") with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant ("OVUII") and driving without a license ("DWOL"). Hewitt moved to suppress evidence based on a failure to provide Miranda warnings. The district court denied Hewitt's motion, and Hewitt was convicted of both offenses after a bench trial.

On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"), Hewitt argued in part that she had been subjected to custodial interrogation without the requisite Miranda warnings. In State v. Hewitt, 149 Hawai‘i 71, 481 P.3d 713 (App. 2021), a published opinion, the ICA held that Miranda warnings were not required because Hewitt was not in custody at the time of questioning.

The ICA ruled Hewitt was not entitled to Miranda warnings because (1) her inability to leave the scene of questioning was not the result of detention by law enforcement; (2) the officers did not have probable cause to arrest until Hewitt stated she had been driving a truck; and (3) the record did not reflect sustained and coercive questioning of Hewitt by the officers. Hewitt, 149 Hawai‘i at 75, 481 P.3d at 717. The ICA also held, however, that the district court erred by (1) overruling Hewitt's Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 621-26 (1993) trial objection by failing to conduct a voluntariness hearing; and (2) denying Hewitt's motion to suppress her blood test result because a search warrant had not been obtained. 149 Hawai‘i at 76, 79, 481 P.3d at 718, 721. On these grounds, the ICA vacated Hewitt's convictions and remanded.

Hewitt sought certiorari review of the district court's motion to suppress denial and the ICA's Miranda analysis. Hewitt posited that, under the ICA's rationale, anyone hospitalized but not under arrest need not be Mirandized because law enforcement did not prevent their ability to leave.

We agree with Hewitt that the district court and ICA erred. First, we hold that Hewitt was in custody when probable cause developed. State v. Sagapolutele-Silva, 151 Hawai‘i 283, 511 P.3d 782 (2022), overruled the bright-line rule articulated in State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai‘i 107, 34 P.3d 1006 (2001), underlined below, which clearly held:

[A] person is "in custody" for purposes of article I, section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution if an objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances reflects either (1) that the person has become impliedly accused of committing a crime because the questions of the police have become sustained and coercive, such that they are no longer reasonably designed briefly to confirm or dispel their reasonable suspicion or (2) that the point of arrest has arrived because either (a) probable cause to arrest has developed or (b) the police have subjected the person to an unlawful "de facto " arrest without probable cause to do so.

Ketchum, 97 Hawai‘i at 126, 34 P.3d at 1025 (emphases added). The Sagapolutele-Silva majority said it was clarifying that, despite this holding, the existence of probable cause is not conclusive and is only a factor to consider in determining whether someone is in custody under a "totality of circumstances" and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings. Sagapolutele-Silva, 151 Hawai‘i at 287, 511 P.3d at 786.

We now expressly overrule Sagapolutele-Silva's abrogation of Ketchum's bright-line rule and hold that the Ketchum rule remains in effect: Miranda warnings are required by article I, section 10 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i when probable cause to arrest has developed. And in Hewitt's case, contrary to the ICA's conclusion, probable cause had developed before she was asked whether she had been driving.

Second, we hold that, based on the totality of circumstances, Hewitt was in custody and was therefore entitled to Miranda warnings even before probable cause developed. In addition to Ketchum's bright-line rule, we have stated, "[W]hether the defendant was in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom of action for Miranda purposes is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances, objectively appraised." State v. Patterson, 59 Haw. 357, 361, 581 P.2d 752, 755 (1978). "These would include the place and time of the interrogation, the length of the interrogation, the nature of the questions asked, the conduct of the police, and all other relevant circumstances." Id.

Police interrogation occurring in a medical treatment setting presents a special circumstance under the "totality of circumstances" test. In United States v. Infante, 701 F.3d 386, 396 (1st Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether the Fifth Amendment requires Miranda warnings under these circumstances. The court noted that when a person is unable to leave the place of an interrogation solely due to circumstances incident to medical treatment, it must be determined whether they were at liberty to terminate the interrogation and cause the officers to leave. 701 F.3d at 396.

We generally adopt the First Circuit's approach for purposes of our constitution's article I, section 10 right against self-incrimination. We hold that if a person is unable to leave a place of interrogation due to circumstances incident to medical treatment, determining whether the person is "in custody" under a totality of circumstances requires an inquiry into whether the person was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and cause the officer to leave.

As further discussed below, under the "totality of circumstances" of this case, Hewitt was in custody well before probable cause developed. Hence, the district court and the ICA erred by holding that Miranda warnings were not required until Hewitt responded affirmatively to an officer's question as to whether she had been driving a truck found damaged on a roadside.

Hewitt's convictions have already been set aside, however, based on developments discussed in Section IV.A below. The nolle prosequi of both counts raises appellate jurisdiction and mootness questions. Hence, before addressing the merits of the issues on certiorari, we explain why appellate jurisdiction was retained. We also clarify that mootness is a prudential consideration and not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

Remand is no longer appropriate, however, whether for the grounds stated in the ICA opinion or in this opinion, and it is unnecessary to determine precisely when Hewitt should have been provided Miranda warnings. Based on the procedural posture of this case, we reverse the ICA's March 18, 2021 Judgment on Appeal and affirm the district court's August 9, 2021 judgment of nolle prosequi of both counts.

II. Background

1. Factual background

In 2014, Hawai‘i County Police Department ("HCPD") Officers Chandler Nacino ("Officer Nacino") and Kaea Sugata ("Officer Sugata") were called to Kona Community Hospital to interview Hewitt as a possible assault victim. An unknown male had dropped Hewitt off at the hospital's emergency room, and hospital staff contacted HCPD regarding Hewitt possibly being an assault victim. Hewitt had large contusions on her face, eyes that were swollen shut, a laceration on her ear, and a broken breast plate. Although awake, Hewitt appeared disoriented and was "rambling incoherently." She did not know where she was or why she was in the hospital.

Officers Nacino and Sugata first encountered Hewitt at around one o'clock in the morning. They waited for the nurse administering Hewitt's treatment to leave before starting an interview. Hewitt gave the officers her name and birth date. Officer Nacino then served Hewitt with a "legal document" for an unrelated case and told her she needed to sign it.¹ Both officers stood at Hewitt's bedside during the interview while Officer Nacino did the majority of the talking.

Officer Nacino asked Hewitt whether she had been assaulted and why her eyes were swollen. Hewitt first responded she had pink-eye, but later said she had a stye. To Officer Nacino, Hewitt's injuries did not appear consistent with either explanation.

At some point, Hawai‘i Fire Department ("HFD") paramedics walked by and asked what was going on. Officer Nacino said they were investigating a possible assault. The paramedics said they had seen a truck's taillights sticking out from roadside bushes. The police officers then left the room² and contacted Sergeant Mekia Rose ("Sergeant Rose") to check on the truck.

Sergeant Rose located an unoccupied truck in some bushes on the shoulder of the road at the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway intersection. The truck had front-end damage, and both of its airbags had been deployed. Sergeant Rose found Hewitt's identification card in the truck and sent a photo of it via text message to Officer Nacino. He also relayed the truck's license plate number, a check of which revealed that the vehicle belonged to a "Cyrus Hewitt."

Officer Nacino returned to the room and asked Hewitt whether she had been in a traffic accident. Hewitt answered yes, first stating that she was driving to a friend's house and parked her vehicle there but later stating that she was going to a doctor's appointment. After this response, the officers stopped asking further questions and placed Hewitt under arrest for suspicion of OVUII.

Before the arrest, the officers did not provide Hewitt any Miranda warnings. They also did not tell Hewitt...