State v. Kazanas
| Decision Date | 29 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CAAP–12–0001011.,CAAP–12–0001011. |
| Citation | 134 Hawai'i 117,336 P.3d 217 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Gregory A. KAZANAS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Randall I. Shintani, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.
Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
The use of a criminal defendant's voluntary statements and admissions as evidence at trial is a critical component of our criminal justice system. Voluntary statements and admissions are reliable. They provide key evidence necessary to solve crimes and facilitate our search for the truth. They provide assurance to the public that the culprit had been brought to justice and promote faith and confidence in our judicial system.
"Voluntary confessions are not merely a proper element in law enforcement, they are an unmitigated good, essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law[.]" Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 108, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and, in the context of a criminal investigation, prevents the police from forcing or coercing a suspect into making an incriminating statement. The requirements imposed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were designed to safeguard a defendant's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 297, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980).
In Miranda, the Court cited a variety of police interrogation techniques which involved psychological coercion that were being used to extract incriminating statements from suspects in custody. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 448–58, 86 S.Ct. 1602. "The concern of the Court in Miranda was that the ‘interrogation environment’ created by the interplay of interrogation and custody would ‘subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner’ and thereby undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination."
Innis, 446 U.S. at 299, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court required that a suspect in custody receive a specified advice of rights, the Miranda warnings, before being subjected to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In determining whether a suspect in custody has been subjected to "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda, and thus entitled to Miranda warnings, "the ultimate question becomes. ‘whether the police officer should have known that his or her words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response[.]’ " State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai‘'i 107, 119, 34 P.3d 1006, 1018 (2001) (quoting State v. Ikaika, 67 Haw. 563, 567, 698 P.2d 281, 284 (1985) ).
In this case, Plaintiff–Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State) charged Defendant–Appellant Gregory A. Kazanas (Kazanas) with first-degree unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle (UEMV) for allegedly grabbing and repeatedly punching the driver through the driver's side window. Kazanas's defense at trial was mistaken identity—that he was not the person who had committed the alleged acts. However, after his arrest, Kazanas made an incriminating statement to Officer Cristy–Lynn Avilla (Officer Avilla), who had been assigned to take Kazanas to the hospital.
Prior to taking Kazanas to the hospital, Officer Avilla told Kazanas that he "was not allowed to talk about the case or say anything about what he had been arrested for," but she did not give Kazanas Miranda warnings. While at the hospital, in an attempt to calm Kazanas, who was making rude comments to others at the hospital, Officer Avilla made "small talk" with Kazanas by asking if he enjoyed Halloween that night and what kind of costumes he saw. A period of time passed. Kazanas then stated that "If people didn't upset me, I wouldn't have to punch them."
On appeal, Kazanas contends that the trial court1 erred in permitting Kazanas's statement to be introduced into evidence at trial, because he claims the statement was the product of a custodial interrogation. We conclude that Officer Avilla did not subject Kazanas to "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda and that Kazanas's statement was not in response to "interrogation" by the Officer. Therefore, the absence of prior Miranda warnings by Officer Avilla did not provide a basis to suppress Kazanas's spontaneous and volunteered statement. Under the circumstances presented, we hold that the trial court properly permitted the State to introduce Kazanas's statement at trial.
Kazanas also contends that the trial court erred in permitting evidence of prior incidents involving Kazanas, which the State offered to rebut Kazanas's claim that his physical disabilities rendered him incapable of engaging in the conduct described by the complaining witness. We hold that the trial court did not err in permitting the State to introduce prior incidents involving Kazanas that were relevant to his physical capabilities, after Kazanas opened the door to such evidence.
The following evidence was adduced in the State's case-in-chief at trial. Shortly after midnight, in the early morning of November 1, 2011, the complaining witness (CW) was driving a 1990 White Mazda Protege through Waikiki. The CW, who was 65, had gone with three friends to Waikiki to observe the Halloween festivities. The CW had just dropped off two of his friends, including the owner of the car, to get food, while the third friend, an elderly woman, remained in the backseat. The CW planned to pick up his two friends after they purchased the food.
While driving down Kuhio Avenue, the CW encountered a group of people running across the street and stopped to let them pass. The CW testified that he drove forward slowly after the group had passed. However, as he entered the intersection, a straggler, "[o]ut of the blue," darted across the street, "ran headlong" into the CW's vehicle, tumbled, bounced up, and continued running. Another group of people, apparently believing that the CW had hit this person, converged on the CW's car, shouting, pounding on the windows, and rocking the car. The CW heard the back window crack next to where his friend was sitting.
The CW testified that he saw a man on the hood of the CW's car with heavy boots stomping against the windshield. The man hopped down from the hood and moved to the driver's side of the car. The man then reached in through the open window, grabbed the CW around the neck, and punched the CW several times in the face with a closed right hand. The man spoke to the CW in an "[a]ngry, inebriated, and just pretty vehement" tone, and the CW could smell alcohol on the man's breath. The CW had a clear and unobstructed view of the man from the chest up.
Around 12:30 a.m., James Easley (Easley), a former police officer for the Honolulu Police Department (HPD), witnessed an incident as Easely stood on Kuhio Avenue in a "sad clown" costume. Easley testified he saw a man, whom he recognized as Kazanas, dressed as a knight, wearing a metal mesh shirt. Easley saw Kazanas break the back window of the CW's car, run to the front of the car, jump on the hood, "kind of rolling on over," approach the driver's window, and repeatedly punch the driver through the open window. Another man, who appeared to be a friend of Kazanas, then grabbed Kazanas and pulled him away from the vehicle, and Kazanas eventually walked away from the scene.
Easley explained that he knew and recognized Kazanas from a prior incident, several years earlier, in which Easley had responded as a police officer to a report that a man had jumped from the ninth floor balcony of the Aloha Surf Hotel. Kazanas was the man who had jumped or fallen, from the ninth floor. Easley testified that he would never forget Kazanas or his name because Kazanas had survived the fall, having landed on a beach chair on the pool deck, and was coherent when Easley arrived.
Easley was within twenty feet of Kazanas when Easley first saw Kazanas break the back window of the CW's car. Easley then moved closer and eventually got to within about two feet of Kazanas when the man who appeared to be Kazanas's friend pulled Kazanas away from the car. Easley testified that he had a clear and unobstructed view of Kazanas from the time Kazanas broke the back window through when Kazanas was punching the driver.
The CW drove away from the scene and found police officers. The CW reported the incident and gave the police a description of his assailant.
In the meantime, Easley, after walking away from the scene, saw the police next to the CW' car. Easley informed one of the police officers that he had observed the incident and knew who the suspect was. As Easley continued walking through Waikiki, he spotted Kazanas, notified the police, and watched Kazanas until the police detained Kazanas.
The police drove the CW to the area where Kazanas was being detained, and the CW identified Kazanas as the person who had assaulted him. The CW made this identification within an hour after the incident. The CW also identified Kazanas in court as the man who had punched him. The CW suffered injuries, consisting of a bleeding left ear and interior cuts to the cheek and gum area.
After the CW identified Kazanas, the police arrested Kazanas, and Kazanas was taken to a hospital by HPD Officer Christy–Lynn Avilla. Officer Avilla testified that she observed injuries to Kazanas's right hand area that "appeared to be cuts and fresh cuts." The State also introduced photographs taken of Kazanas's right hand, which Officer Avilla described as showing redness on the top of Kazanas's knuckles and minor scrapes around it. At the hospital, Kazanas stated, "If ...
To continue reading
Request your trial