State v. Macariola

• Decision Date: 17 December 2021
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-18-0000807,CAAP-18-0000807
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ross K. MACARIOLA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

150 Hawai‘i 327

500 P.3d 512 (Table)

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Ross K. MACARIOLA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

NO. CAAP-18-0000807

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

December 17, 2021

On the briefs:

Donald L. Wilkerson, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellant.

Leneigha S. Downs, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i for Plaintiff-Appellee.

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant-Appellant Ross K. Macariola (Macariola ) appeals from the September 20, 2018 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (Judgment ) entered against him by the District Court of the Third Circuit, South Kohala Division (District Court ).¹

Macariola was convicted of Assault in the Third Degree under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 707-712(1)(a)(2014)² (Assault Third ) and sentenced to ten days of confinement with eight days suspended and placed on probation for one year. On appeal, Macariola requests that this court reverse the conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2018, the State of Hawai‘i (State ) filed a Complaint against Macariola, alleging that Macariola had "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury to another person, RAYNARD TORRES [(Torres )], thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Section 707-712(1)(a), [HRS ]."

During pretrial proceedings on August 7, 2018, the District Court stated that pretrial motions were due on or before August 23, 2018, and that responses to these motions, witness lists, and exhibit lists were due on September 13, 2018. As discussed herein, both the State and District Court subsequently misstated the date that witness and exhibit lists were due. On appeal, the parties concur that the deadline for witness and exhibit lists was September 13, 2018.

On September 13, 2018, Macariola filed a witness list and a Notice of Intent to Offer Character Evidence (Notice ) under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (HRE ) Rules 404(a)(2) and 404(b). Macariola's Notice indicated his intent to introduce evidence about Torres's prior criminal convictions, specifically, "an assault in 2007, a TRO violation in 2013, a harassment case in 2013, and a case of Abuse of a Family/Household Member in 2014; as well as evidence of his Promotion of Dangerous Drugs in 2008."

Macariola's witness list named Harry Yim (Yim ) as a defense witness, though it did not provide an address or any other contact information and stated that Yim's address was unknown.

The District Court found the Notice was sufficient, but excluded the character evidence as irrelevant. The District Court also denied Macariola's request to present Yim as a witness, as well as his request to continue the trial to permit the State to interview Yim. The District Court's decision to preclude Yim's testimony was largely premised on both the State and District Court's mistaken belief that the witness list had not been filed in accordance with trial milestones.

MS. BAILEY: Um, the State does not have that witness list in its file, but the deadline was August 23rd, 2018. And pursuant to Rule 16, there also be -- needs to be a way for, especially if the person's not identified in discovery, a way for the State to -- to contact that individual, and there was no contact information provided.

....

THE COURT: Uh, my understanding, from review of the minutes³ and from the procedure, uh, that I've seen the Court follow, is that the pretrial motion deadline is the same as the witness and exhibit list deadline. The trial -- the -- the third -- the week before trial is the response to any pretrial motions.

So if you filed your witness list on the 13th of September, that's past the deadline of the August 23rd, Mr. Miller.

....

THE COURT: Well the -- the issue that I have is, um, is sufficient notice to the State. So if the deadline for the witness list was -- it -- which -- which it was, was August 23rd, you don't meet that deadline, um, by filing on September 13th. Um, and I wouldn't, uh, I mean if -- if you had filed on August 23rd and you had said, "address unknown," um, and then you did find him subsequently, uh, I would be inclined to allow him to testify, uh, because that would have been sufficient notice to the State, um, I think. But filing a witness September 23rd, or excuse me, on September 13th when it was due August 23rd, I understand we're all busy people but, uh, that's two weeks after the deadline.

....

THE COURT: So, Mr. Miller, it's not just some rule or just some procedure, uh, you know, for -- for no purpose. And really the rule is to allow notice to the other side, in this case the State, to prepare. And by filing something on the 13th and then calling him today, I -- I just don't see that the State had proper notice and an ability to prepare.

So, uh, I am not going to allow his testimony. Uh, and I understand you're busy, but I'm busy, too, and the State's busy. We're -- we're all busy.

You were in front of the Court on September 11th, um, and at that time could have had the opportunity to let the Court know what the status was of your investigation and what your calendar looked like, and the Court could have entertained a motion to continue trial at that point. But and then to come here today for trial and say you're prepared to proceed, and then call somebody that is, uh, not previously disclosed, uh, Court not -- Court's not going to allow him.

(Emphasis added).

The State called three witnesses during its case-in-chief, including Torres. Torres testified that he was in the area to sell a tattoo gun to Lovelyn Yamamoto (Yamamoto ). Torres further testified that Shane Batalona (Batalona ) accompanied Yamamoto to Torres's vehicle and examined the tattoo gun. Shortly thereafter, the encounter became violent and Torres was struck by both Batalona and Macariola.

Macariola was the only witness in the defense case-in-chief. He testified that he had acted in defense of Batalona and of himself, and that Torres was the initial aggressor. The District Court found that Macariola struck Torres in the face and that Macariola did not have a reasonable belief to act in self-defense or in defense of another.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

Macariola asserts three points of error on appeal: (1) the District Court's refusal to allow the Defense to introduce complainant's prior acts, including a drug conviction and convictions for charges involving violence and aggression, prevented Macariola from presenting a complete defense; (2) the District Court abused its discretion in precluding Macariola from presenting the testimony of a percipient witness to the incident based on an erroneous belief that trial counsel had missed the deadline for filing his witness list; and (3) Macariola's conviction must be reversed because the State failed to adduce substantial evidence that any physical contact Macariola made with the complainant was not in defense of others or in self-defense.

III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

"The admissibility of evidence requires different standards of review depending on the particular rule of evidence at issue. When application of a particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct result, the proper standard for appellate review is the right/wrong standard. The traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a ‘judgment call’ on the part of the trial court." State v. Pond, 118 Hawai‘i 452, 461, 193 P.3d 368, 377 (2008) (citing State v. St. Clair, 101 Hawai‘i 280, 286, 67 P.3d 779, 785 (2003) ) (bracket omitted).

Evidentiary rulings made pursuant to HRE Rule 404 require a "judgment call," and therefore we apply the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Williams, 147 Hawai‘i 606, 613, 465 P.3d 1053, 1060 (2020) (citing State v. Richie, 88 Hawai‘i 19, 37, 960 P.2d 1227, 1245 (1998) ). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court "clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Id. (citing Samson v. Nahulu, 136 Hawai‘i 415, 425, 363 P.3d 263, 273 (2015) ).

"A trial court's determination that evidence is ‘relevant’ within the meaning of HRE Rule 401 [ ] is reviewed under the right/wrong standard of review." St. Clair, 101 Hawai‘i at 286, 67 P.3d at 785. HRE Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

We review the sufficiency of evidence on appeal as follows:

[E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the case was before a judge or jury. The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.

State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010) (citation omitted).

" ‘Substantial evidence’ as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence." State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007) (citation omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

Macariola's main argument on appeal is that his constitutional right to present a complete defense was violated. The protections granted to an accused by article 1, section 14 of the Hawai‘i Constitution include "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai‘i 229, 246, 925 P.2d 797, 814 (1996) (citation omitted). The right to present a complete defense includes the ...