State v. Maldonado
| Decision Date | 14 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 25606.,25606. |
| Citation | 121 P.3d 901 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jobert Lyle MALDONADO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant, and Kevin Wayne Anthony and Wendy Ualani Tomiko Okimoto, Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Ryan Yeh, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the writ, for petitioner/plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i.
Jack Schweigert, Honolulu, on the writ, for respondent/defendant-appellant Jobert Lyle Maldonado.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honorable Victoria S. Marks presiding, respondent-defendant-appellant Jobert Lyle Maldonado was found guilty of: (1) one count of promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1241(1)(d) (Supp.2001);1 (2) one count of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, HRS § 712-1242(1)(b)(i) (1993 & Supp.2001);2 (3) two counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, HRS § 712-1243 (1993 & Supp.2001);3 and (4) one count of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, HRS § 329-43.5 (1993).4 On June 6, 2005, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) issued a published opinion vacating the circuit court's January 24, 2003 judgment and remanding for further proceedings. State v. Maldonado, No. 25606 108 Hawai`i ___, 121 P.3d 911 (Haw.App. June 6, 2005) [hereinafter, ICA Opinion]. The State of Hawai`i [hereinafter, the prosecution] subsequently applied for a writ of certiorari to review the ICA Opinion.
We granted the prosecution's application for a writ of certiorari for two purposes: first, to address the following question raised by the prosecution — whether HRS § 803-11 (1993),5 the so-called "knock-and-announce" rule, may be satisfied by substantial compliance. For the reasons stated by the ICA and adopted herein, we agree that, based on the facts of this case, where the police opened a closed screen door and broke the threshold of Maldonado's dwelling prior to announcing that they bore an arrest warrant and without waiting for a reasonable time after demanding entry, HRS § 803-11 was violated, with the consequence that the subsequent search of Maldonado's home and seizure of evidence therefrom were invalid. Second, although we agree with the ICA's application of HRS § 803-11, we also granted certiorari to notice error in the ICA's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Maldonado's convictions in light of the illegal search and seizure. Because there was insufficient admissible evidence to support his conviction on any of the counts, we now vacate the ICA Opinion in part and remand the case to the circuit court for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
Because it is not necessary to address any dispute regarding the substantive facts, this court adopts the following factual background set forth in the ICA Opinion:6
On June 25, 2002, the State charged Maldonado with five counts relating to contraband. Maldonado filed his Motion to Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress) on August 7, 2002, asking that "all evidence obtained as a result of an illegal seizure and search of the Defendant's residence" be suppressed. Hearings on the motion took place on August 22, September 5, and September 16, 2002.
At the hearings, Deputy Sheriff Cayetano (Cayetano) testified that on June 10, 2002 he was contacted by the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) regarding a tip HPD had received on the whereabouts of one of Hawaii's most wanted fugitives, Robert Maldonado (Robert), Maldonado's brother. The tipster provided information that Robert was at Maldonado's home and that firearms and drugs might be present. Police officers, including Officer Yosemori (Yosemori) and Officer Pagan (Pagan), went to Maldonado's residence to assist Cayetano in executing the arrest warrant for Robert. Based on Robert's status as "most-wanted," the officers were armed and had on bullet-proof vests. The officers approached the house, and Cayetano could see that the lights were on, the exterior screen door was closed, and the interior wooden door was open.
Cayetano had his gun unholstered and to his side. Cayetano testified that he simultaneously knocked on and opened the screen door and "announced, `Sheriff's Office, Police.'" It was only after Cayetano knocked and opened the screen door that he asked if he could enter and stated that he had a "retake warrant." Cayetano testified when he opened the screen door, he looked into the house and it was possible that a portion of his upper body crossed the threshold of the house, but he did not enter the house. After Cayetano opened the door, he saw Maldonado, Wendy Okimoto (Okimoto), and Kevin Wayne Anthony (Anthony)7 in a back room. The three individuals in the back room looked in the direction of the officers.
Cayetano testified that he said[,] "Sheriff's Office, police; is Robert here?" and Maldonado said[,] "No." Cayetano testified that he asked, and Maldonado said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." The officers then entered the house. Cayetano asked Maldonado if he was the owner of the place, and Maldonado said yes. Cayetano testified that he instructed Maldonado, Okimoto, and Anthony to exit the house for safety reasons and wait outside with other police officers; Maldonado, Okimoto, and Anthony left the house.
Yosemori testified that he knocked on the screen door, saw the screen door was unlocked, and then opened the screen door while announcing[,] "Police and sheriffs." Yosemori testified that he opened the screen door because he could see people in the house through the screen door, but did not "have a good picture" of their movements, "like if anyone might have been pulling out a weapon or something." Yosemori stated that the screen door opened outward and he had his back against the door holding it open and had one foot on the platform in front of the door and one foot on the doorsill. Yosemori had his weapon out, but he was holding it down toward the ground. Yosemori testified that Cayetano told the people to come out of the room, and Yosemori asked if Robert was there. Maldonado said no. Yosemori asked who lived there, and Maldonado said he did. Yosemori asked Maldonado if he was Robert's brother, and Maldonado said yes. Yosemori testified that Cayetano asked if they could go inside and look for Robert, and Maldonado said "yeah."
Yosemori testified that he entered the house first and went into the closest room, but found no one in the room. He then went to the back room from which Maldonado, Okimoto, and Anthony had exited. Yosemori noticed that "right out in the open in the middle of the floor" there were three glass pipes with residue inside. Based on Yosemori's experience and training, he believed the pipes were used to smoke methamphetamine. Yosemori also found a glass dish with some crystal substance inside, a can of acetone, and a box of baking soda. Following procedure, Yosemori notified the narcotics division clandestine lab team.
Pagan testified that six or seven officers approached the house. The officers secured the perimeter of the house, and Pagan, Cayetano, and Yosemori went to the front door. As the officers approached the house, Pagan was holding a shotgun towards the house. While he was standing behind Cayetano and Yosemori at the front door, he held the shotgun pointed downward. Pagan testified that when Cayetano asked Maldonado if Robert was there, Maldonado answered no. Cayetano then asked Maldonado if they could "make entry into the residence to make sure that [Robert] wasn't there." Yosemori asked the same question. Pagan testified that he heard Maldonado answer yes to the officers' questions. After the officers entered the house, Pagan raised his shotgun, but he did not point it at Maldonado, Okimoto, and Anthony. Pagan testified that firearms were found by the police "on the side of the house."
Maldonado testified that on June 10, 2002, he was with Okimoto and Anthony in a room in his house when he heard "one loud noise that said oh, everybody, get out of the room." He stated that by the time he came out from the back room, the police were "right inside my doorway already; in fact, they were pretty much inside my house." The police had their guns out and one officer had a rifle pointing in the general direction of Maldonado, Okimoto, and Anthony. Maldonado claimed he felt threatened and scared because of the presence of the police and their firearms, even though no one made any verbal threats. Maldonado testified that when the police asked whether they could look for Robert, Maldonado said[,] "I guess[,]" or "yeah," agreeing with the request.
The circuit court denied Maldonado's Motion to Suppress and issued its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence" on November 12, 2002. The circuit court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On June 10, 2002, the Department of Public Safety and the Honolulu Police Department acted on a tip that a parole violator, Robert Maldonado (defendant JOBERT MALDONADO's brother) was currently at an apartment at 1704A Apaki Street.
2. A Sheriff's deputy and Honolulu Police Department officers were in possession of an arrest warrant authorizing them to arrest Robert Maldonado; and when the officers went to that address they confronted defendant JOBERT MALDONADO.
3. According to the information given to the officers, firearms were purported to be present at the premises where Robert Maldonado had been reported, which was defendant JOBERT MALDONADO's residence.
4. When they approached the premises where Robert Maldonado was reported to be, one or more officers knocked on the door, announced their presence and office (both the police and the sheriff) and demanded entry; then one or more officers partially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rizzo
...defendant's motion to suppress results of breath test), overruled on other grounds by State v. Maldonado, 108 Hawai‘i 436, 445 n. 13, 121 P.3d 901 (2005); R. Flamm, supra, § 12.9, pp. at 330, 334; cf. [31 A.3d 1129] State v. Cobb, supra, 251 Conn. at 375, 743 A.2d 1 (rejecting claim that th......
-
State v. Heapy
...cause was lacking at the time search or seizure was conducted" (citation omitted) (emphasis in original)); State v. Maldonado, 108 Hawai`i 436, 445, 121 P.3d 901, 910 (2005) (noting that "`[a]ssuming an unreasonable search or seizure, any evidence derived therefrom is inadmissible in a crim......
-
State v. Pratt
...evidence would not enable a reasonably cautious person to conclude that Petitioner was guilty of the offense. State v. Maldonado, 108 Hawai‘i 436, 442, 121 P.3d 901, 907 (2005). Vacation of the conviction is thus required.5 IV.Whether Petitioner's waiver of his right to have Respondent prov......
-
State v. Jones
...also analogized his case to State v. Bebb, 99 Hawai‘i 213, 53 P.3d 1198 (App. 2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Maldonado, 108 Hawai‘i 436, 121 P.3d 901 (2005), in which the officer based his lay opinion about an arrestee's intoxication on his assessment of the SFSTs, but the St......