State v. Miranda
| Decision Date | 04 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-17-0000660 |
| Citation | 465 P.3d 618 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander MIRANDA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Dwight C.H. Lum, Honolulu, for petitioner
Chad M. Kumagai for respondent
A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a constitutionally protected right to cross-examine a witness for potential bias or motive. In this case, the defendant argues that this right was violated when the circuit court prevented defense counsel from cross-examining the complainant about disciplinary action the complainant might have faced as a United States Marine for instigating a fight in violation of its code of conduct provisions. We conclude that because the defense was precluded from questioning the complainant about this potential source of bias, the jury did not have sufficient information from which to make an informed appraisal of the complainant's motives or bias. We also provide guidance concerning the admissibility of other evidence as to the contents of a destroyed video recording under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rules 1004 and 403.
On March 27, 2015, Alexander Miranda was involved in an altercation in which complainant David Metts' jaw and nose were broken
. Miranda was subsequently charged by felony information, on March 2, 2016, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) with committing the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-711(1)(a) or (b).1 Miranda pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Prior to trial, Miranda filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State's delay in bringing the charge violated his due process right to a fair trial. In a declaration submitted with the motion, defense counsel averred the following facts. The altercation occurred on the sidewalk in front of an ABC store in Waikiki around midnight on March 27, 2015. Shortly after, in the early morning of March 28, Miranda and his friend Steven Rodriguez were arrested for their involvement in the incident. After their arrest, Officer Arthur Gazelle of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) reviewed security camera footage from the ABC store, which recorded the altercation. Officer Gazelle took a photograph of the video screen when it showed Rodriguez and Metts, but not Miranda. HPD Detective (Det.) Michael Burger was thereafter assigned to investigate the incident. According to Det. Burger's closing report, he contacted Newell Hirata, an ABC employee, sometime during his investigation and Hirata informed him that the surveillance video was no longer available.2 Miranda maintained that the loss of the video was caused by the State's delay in bringing the charge, and because the video would have shown that Metts was the first aggressor and Miranda acted in self-defense, the loss of the video violated his right to a fair trial.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss,3 Officer Gazelle testified that the relevant portion of the video lasted about four minutes and showed an argument between Metts, his companion Casey Smith, Miranda, Rodriguez, and multiple other individuals. According to Officer Gazelle, Metts and Smith did not strike Miranda or Rodriguez, and it did not appear that they were instigating the fight. Miranda threw the first punch, striking Metts in the face, and after moving 10 to 15 feet away from the group, he suddenly ran back to punch Metts again. Officer Gazelle also stated that he took a photograph of the video and that it showed Metts and Rodriguez. The court denied the motion, concluding that Miranda had not proven that he suffered actual prejudice from the video's destruction because the testimony indicated that the video was not exculpatory and would not have supported his claim of self-defense.
A jury trial commenced with motions in limine on April 10, 2017.4 The State sought permission to present Officer Gazelle's testimony regarding the contents of the video. Miranda filed a written opposition and a separate motion in limine seeking an order precluding Officer Gazelle's testimony as to the video's contents. The court ruled that Officer Gazelle could testify that he viewed the video, but he would be precluded from describing its contents.
Defense counsel then informed the court that the defense would seek to admit the photograph that Officer Gazelle had taken of the security video screen into evidence. Counsel asked the court to make a ruling as to the admissibility of the photograph, which according to the officer's report showed the moment before Rodriguez punched Metts' face. Miranda was not in the picture, counsel explained, and it was consistent with Miranda's defense that he had walked away after throwing one punch in self-defense to stop the fight. The court stated that it was unable to determine the relevance of the photograph without knowing what the testimony of the witnesses would be. Defense counsel proposed to give an offer of proof, but the court stated that the issue could be decided at the bench or during recess after the relevant witnesses had testified. The State maintained that allowing the photograph into evidence would open the door to Officer Gazelle's testimony as to the video's contents. The court noted that it was "one picture in an entire video" and that its introduction might open the door to testimony regarding the contents of the video recording.
The State called Samuel Wight as its first witness. Wight testified that on the night of the incident, he was walking in Waikiki when he heard shouting and cursing. He turned around and saw three people confronting two other people; the trio was yelling at the other two individuals, who were not yelling back. According to Wight, the taller male of the three individuals, who he later identified as Miranda, was standing about a meter away from Metts, who had his hands up with his palms facing forward. Miranda took a step toward Metts and punched him with an uppercut. Wight said that he heard a loud cracking sound and saw Metts start spitting blood. Wight ran over to the group and Miranda was cocking his fist back as if he was going for another hit, but he did not punch Metts again. Wight acknowledged that he did not include in his written statement to police that he witnessed a "fist cocked back" or heard a loud cracking sound. Wight also stated that he did not see anyone else punch Metts and did not see Metts push or punch anyone in the other group or get into a fighting stance.
Metts, who was enlisted in the United States Marines at the time of the incident, testified that on the evening of March 27, 2015, he was at a bar in the Waikiki area just before midnight with Smith, also a marine. He stated that he had no more than three drinks at the bar and was not drunk. Metts said that he and Smith encountered Miranda and two other men on the sidewalk in Waikiki. As they passed the group, he turned his body to let them by and was shoulder-bumped. When he turned around to see what had happened, the three males were looking back at them. One of the three males stood "forehead to forehead" with Smith, whose shoulder was in a sling. Metts said that he shifted his focus to Smith when he saw the sling get ripped off Smith's shoulder and that he was then struck across the face. He immediately felt blood fill his mouth and his mouth felt different. He believed he was struck again, but he was no longer positive and only remembered being hit once. Metts testified that he never touched Miranda or any of his friends.
On cross-examination, Metts acknowledged that he said he had shoved someone during an interview with a detective, but that now he did not remember shoving anyone or saying that he did. He also acknowledged telling the detective in the interview that he had been punched twice. Metts stated that during a field lineup, he singled out Miranda as the person who punched him and stated that both Miranda and the person next to him in the lineup were part of the group. Audio from the recorded interview was played for the jury. In the recording, Metts stated that he was hit twice by the same person while trying to keep one of the males away from his friend, and that during the identification procedure he pointed out two of the males in the lineup but could not say which one hit him.5
Defense counsel then asked Metts about the "Marine Corps ... code of conduct," (code of conduct) but the State objected to the question as irrelevant. The following exchange took place:
Defense counsel asked for a bench conference and argued that the questions went to bias and motive. The court replied there was no evidence that Metts was overly drunk or acting out and it would not "allow [defense counsel] to place that on trial here." The State argued that, because Metts was no longer in the Marines, "bias, interest, and motive is gone." Defense counsel responded, "This is at the time of the offense--" to which the court replied, while counsel was in mid-sentence, and ended the bench conference.
Defense counsel then attempted to ask Metts about the code of conduct with regard to fighting, and the State's objection was sustained before Metts could respond:
Dr. Jerry Beckham, who attended to Metts' injuries after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Known
...have never rejected this doctrine, its use by the Hawai‘i trial courts is well documented. See State v. Miranda, No. 17-0000660, 147 Hawai‘i 171, 184-85, 465 P.3d 618, 631-32 (Haw. June 4, 2020) ; Lavoie, 145 Hawai‘i at 414, 453 P.3d at 234 ; State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai‘i 462, 497, 946 P.2d......
-
State v. Ikimaka
...free to go. Henderson left the scene, but Ikimaka chose to stay, and Officer Roldan Agbayani ("Officer Agbayani"), then read Ikimaka his Miranda rights. Ikimaka indicated he did not want to make a statement.The truck was towed to the KPD evidence warehouse, and Sergeant Nesbitt requested a ......
-
State v. Kaeo
...Hawai‘i Constitution.6 "Questions of constitutional law are reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard." State v. Miranda, 147 Hawai‘i 171, 179, 465 P.3d 618, 626 (2020) (citing State v. Ui, 142 Hawai‘i 287, 292, 418 P.3d 628, 633 (2018) ). The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ......
-
State v. Feliciano
...court has stated that the ‘opening the door’ doctrine is essentially a rule of expanded relevancy." State v. Miranda, 147 Hawai‘i 171, 183, 465 P.3d 618, 630 (2020) (citing State v. Lavoie, 145 Hawai‘i 409, 422, 453 P.3d 229, 242 (2019) ). Under the general formulation of this doctrine, "wh......