State v. Hewitt

• Decision Date: 16 February 2021
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-16-0000460,CAAP-16-0000460
• Citation: 481 P.3d 713
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cyrina HEWITT, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

481 P.3d 713

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Cyrina HEWITT, Defendant-Appellant

NO. CAAP-16-0000460

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

FEBRUARY 16, 2021

On the briefs:

Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, State of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Taryn R. Tomasa, Deputy Public Defender, State of Hawai‘i, for Defendant-Appellant.

GINOZA, CHIEF JUDGE, LEONARD AND HIRAOKA, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.

After a bench trial, Defendant-Appellant Cyrina Hewitt (Hewitt ) was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII ) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 291E-61(a)(1),¹ and driving without a license in violation of HRS § 286-102(b).² Hewitt appeals from the "Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment" (Judgment ) entered by the District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division,³ on May 20, 2016. She contends that the district court erred by (1) denying her motion to suppress her statement to a police officer that she was driving and failing to determine the voluntariness of her statement; (2) denying her motion to suppress the result of her warrantless blood draw; and (3) admitting her blood test result into evidence.

We hold that the district court did not err by denying Hewitt's motion to suppress her statement, but did err by overruling Hewitt's HRS § 621-26 trial objection and failing to conduct a hearing on the voluntariness of her statement. In addition, the district court erred by denying Hewitt's motion to suppress her blood test result because the State did not develop the record to justify the warrantless blood draw. Accordingly, we vacate the Judgment and remand for a new trial; we need not decide Hewitt's third point of error.

BACKGROUND

At 1:00 a.m. on July 3, 2014, Hawai‘i County Police Department (HCPD ) police officer Chandler Nacino was assigned to contact a possible assault victim at the Kona Community Hospital emergency room. The possible victim was Hewitt. Hospital staff told Officer Nacino that Hewitt had been dropped off at the emergency room by an unknown male. The male was not present when Officer Nacino made contact with Hewitt. A nurse was present, but left the room as Officer Nacino entered. HCPD police officer Kaea Sugata was also present in the emergency room, but Officer Nacino "did the majority of the talking[.]"

Hewitt was lying in a hospital bed, awake, and wearing a medical gown. She appeared to be disoriented. Neither Officer Nacino nor Officer Sugata remembered whether Hewitt was hooked up to an intravenous line. Hewitt had large contusions on her face. Her eyes were swollen shut. She had a laceration on her ear. She gave Officer Nacino her name and date of birth. She did not know where she was, and did not know why she was in the hospital. Officer Nacino then served her with "legal documents" for "an unrelated case[,]" for which she had to sign.⁴

Officer Nacino testified that when he asked Hewitt if she had been assaulted, "She gave me incoherent answers like, you know, that she's a big girl, she can handle her stuff, and kinda undecipherable, really, what she was saying." Officer Nacino observed that Hewitt "appeared to be out of it and had slurred speech."

Officer Nacino asked Hewitt why her eyes were swollen. Hewitt said she had pink eye, and later said she had stye eye. Officer Nacino did not think her injuries were consistent with either medical condition. Officer Nacino suspected that Hewitt was under the influence of alcohol or some kind of intoxicant, but he did not testify whether he knew if Hewitt had been given any medication in the emergency room that might have affected her level of consciousness.

At that time, some paramedics walked by and asked what was happening. Officer Nacino told the paramedics he was investigating whether Hewitt was an assault victim. The paramedics told Officer Nacino they had seen a pickup truck in the bushes near the intersection of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway. The paramedics gave Officer Nacino the truck's license plate number.

Officer Nacino left Hewitt in the emergency room, contacted his sergeant, Mekia Rose, and relayed the information provided by the paramedics. Sergeant Rose went to the location described by the paramedics and found a pickup truck in the bushes. The truck had front-end damage and both front airbags had been deployed. Sergeant Rose told Officer Nacino that the registered owner of the truck was named Cyrus Hewitt, and that Cyrina Hewitt's state identification card was found in a wallet inside the truck. Sergeant Rose took a photograph of Hewitt's identification card and sent it to Officer Nacino in a text message.

Officer Nacino returned to Hewitt in the emergency room. Up to that time, Officer Nacino had not placed Hewitt under arrest or told her she was not free to terminate their conversation. Officer Nacino told Hewitt the pickup truck had been found. He asked Hewitt if she was driving. Hewitt stated that she was driving to a friend's house and parked the truck in the bushes. She then stated she was going to the doctor. Officer Nacino stopped asking questions, placed Hewitt under arrest for OVUII, told her a blood draw would be conducted, and told her she would be released after her blood was drawn. Hewitt's blood was drawn at around 3:30 a.m.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hewitt was charged by complaint with OVUII and driving without a license. She filed motions to suppress her statement that she was driving and evidence of her blood alcohol concentration. Both motions were denied. At trial, Officer Nacino testified that Hewitt told him she was driving. Hewitt's father, Cyrus Hewitt, testified that a friend of his named Bill Thomas was the driver. Hewitt testified that "Uncle Bill" was driving, she fell asleep in the passenger seat, and woke up in the hospital. Hewitt was convicted of OVUII and driving without a license; when announcing the verdict, the district court stated it "heard the testimony of Mr. Cyrus Hewitt and defendant, Cyrina Hewitt, and does not find their testimonies to be credible." This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo to determine whether the ruling was right or wrong. State v. Vinuya, 96 Hawai‘i 472, 480, 32 P.3d 116, 124 (App. 2001).

[W]hen the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress is denied and the evidence is subsequently introduced at trial, the defendant's appeal of the denial of the motion to suppress is actually an appeal of the introduction of the evidence at trial. Consequently, when deciding an appeal of the pretrial denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the appellate court considers both the record of the hearing on the motion to suppress and the record of the trial.

Id. at 481, 32 P.3d at 125 (cleaned up).

DISCUSSION

1. The district court did not err by denying Hewitt's motions to suppress, but erred when it overruled her trial objection.

A. Motions to suppress.

Hewitt's motions to suppress argued that she was interrogated by Officer Nacino while in custody without being advised of her Miranda rights.⁵ A person in police custody may not be subjected to interrogation without first being advised of their Miranda rights. State v. Melemai, 64 Haw. 479, 481, 643 P.2d 541, 543 (1982). But the Hawai‘i Supreme Court has also noted that "application of the Miranda rule is limited." Id. at 481, 643 P.2d at 544. "It does not preclude the police, in the exercise of their investigatory duties or functions, from making general on-the-scene inquiries as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questions in the fact-finding process." Id. at 481-82, 643 P.2d at 544 (citation omitted).

In Melemai, a jogger was struck by a pickup truck. Eyewitnesses gave a police officer the license number and a description of the truck, which contained two occupants. The officer radioed the license number to the police station and obtained Melemai's name and address. The officer went to Melemai's address and waited. A truck arrived, driven by Melemai. It matched the description given by the witnesses, and contained one other occupant. At the officer's request, Melemai came out of the truck and produced his driver's license. The officer asked Melemai if he had hit anyone with his truck. Melemai answered affirmatively. The officer then asked Melemai why he ran away. Melemai responded that he got angry when he saw the jogger and "went for him." Melemai, 64 Haw. at 480, 643 P.2d at 543. Both questions were asked before Melemai was given Miranda warnings.

Melemai was indicted. He filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the police officer and a motion to dismiss the indictment. The trial court granted both motions, ruling that Miranda warnings were required before the police officer could question Melemai. The State appealed. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court reversed in part. The supreme court held that the determination of whether a defendant was in custody "is to be made by objectively appraising the totality of the circumstances[,]" including

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. Among the relevant circumstances to be considered are whether the investigation has focused on the suspect and whether the police have probable cause to arrest [the suspect] prior to questioning. While focus of the investigation upon the defendant, standing alone, will not trigger the application of the Miranda rule, it is an important factor in determining whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation. Probable cause to arrest is also not determinative, but it may play a significant role in the application of the Miranda rule.

Melemai, 64 Haw. at 481, 643 P.2d at 544 (citations omitted). The supreme court described "the outer parameters beyond which on-the-scene interviews may not proceed without Miranda warnings":

Persons

...