State v. Riveira
| Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-17-0000727 |
| Citation | 494 P.3d 1160,149 Hawai‘i 427 |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph Curtis RIVEIRA, Jr., also known as Ralph C. Riveira, Jr., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
Harrison L. Kiehm, Honolulu, for petitioner
Stephen K. Tsushima, Honolulu, for respondent
The prosecution injected victim impact evidence into Ralph Riveira's burglary trial. And during opening statement and closing argument, the State spotlighted the crime's effect on the burglarized family. It also told the jurors that defense counsel tried to "trick" them.
The prosecution's narrative arc focused on the victims’ emotional state and actions after the crime. This constituted prosecutorial misconduct. So did the comment besmirching defense counsel. But the evidence overwhelmingly established Riveira's guilt. We conclude that the misconduct was harmless and affirm Riveira's conviction.1
A burglary happened at a Kailua house. The homeowner returned home. She saw a man running in her backyard. He was carrying a black object with black cords hanging from it. The homeowner ran after him to get "a good visual." She did not see his face. But she had an unobstructed view of the man from about twenty-five feet. The fleeing man was heavy-set and had short hair. He wore a neon green construction shirt, dark boots, and plaid shorts. The man hopped the backyard fence.
The homeowner later realized that her laptop and her children's gaming devices were taken. A towel she had laid on the floor for her dog had a boot print.
After the burglar jumped the fence, the homeowner called 911. She described "what [the man] looked like, what he was wearing, and what he was carrying."
The homeowner also told the 911 operator about a red Toyota Tundra parked by her mailbox. She recited the truck's license plate number. And she relayed that a woman was sitting inside. The woman's feet rested on the dashboard; her toenails were painted. Shortly after, the truck left.
Within ten minutes, the police stopped a red Toyota Tundra about a mile and a half from the burglarized home. The truck matched the license plate number given by the homeowner. Riveira sat in the front passenger seat. The truck's owner, a woman with painted toenails, was the driver.2 Both were arrested. The police impounded the truck and got a search warrant.
About ten minutes before the burglary's end, the homeowner's neighbor spotted a similar Toyota Tundra parked on a nearby street. He told the police he saw a man sitting in the truck. The neighbor had "a clear visual." The man had short hair and wore a yellow construction shirt. They made eye contact; the man gave him a shaka. About five minutes later, the neighbor saw the truck again. This time it drove down his and the homeowner's street.
After Riveira's detention, the police drove the homeowner and neighbor separately to Riveira's location for a field show-up. Both identified Riveira as the man they had seen. At trial, the homeowner testified: "[h]e was wearing the same plaid shorts, he had the same build, he had the same [dark boots]." She said, "[t]he only thing [that] was different [at the field show-up] was [Riveira's] shirt; he was not wearing the construction neon shirt." The neighbor identified Riveira partly based on his tattoos. The homeowner identified the female driver as the woman in the truck by her mailbox; the toenails matched.
The police recovered the stolen property – a black laptop with a black cord and gaming devices - from the impounded truck. Officers also retrieved Riveira's photograph from a bag in the truck.
At trial, the homeowner and neighbor testified.3 They detailed their encounters with the suspect and the truck. They also discussed how they identified Riveira. Police officers testified about the arrest, field show-ups, and truck search. The jury viewed scene photographs depicting Riveira, the home, the truck, and the stolen property found in it.
The prosecution's trial narrative featured evidence and remarks about the crime's impact on the homeowner's family. The prosecution bookended its case with commentary regarding this impact. During opening statement, the deputy prosecuting attorney previewed the case: (Emphasis added.)
During the State's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecuting attorney showcased the victim impact evidence he had presented. The State's argument ended with a plea to convict Riveira for what he had done to the family:
(Emphases added.)
The State called the eyewitness homeowner's husband to testify. He wasn't home during the crime. The deputy prosecuting attorney asked a few questions relating to consent; the burglar did not have permission to enter or take any property from the family home. The prosecuting attorney then asked: "how did it make you feel after you had learned that you had been burglarized?" "Violated," he told the jury. Defense counsel failed to object.
The prosecution similarly questioned the homeowner about how the burglary affected her:
Defense counsel again failed to object. He later cross-examined the homeowner about the crime's impact.4
Defense counsel objected to the prosecution's remarks relating to victim impact evidence only once, after the State's rebuttal closing argument. At the bench, counsel objected "to the last couple of sentences" in the State's rebuttal argument. These sentences seemingly relate to the prosecutor's plea to hold Riveira accountable for what he did to the family. The court overruled the objection.
Defense counsel asked the court to reconsider its ruling, advancing a broader argument that the prosecuting attorney "went to the passion of the jury by saying imagine how [the homeowner felt] based upon what had happened, not about the items that were taken, [but] about ... [the family's] security." The prosecuting attorney denied making any "suggestion to the jury to place themselves in the [homeowners’] shoes."5 The court affirmed its ruling. It believed that the jury instructions, including a command to avoid being influenced by passion or prejudice, would ensure fairness.6
"Wasn't me" was Riveira's defense. It was a case of misidentification, he argued. Riveira did not testify. Through cross-examination, Riveira hoped to undermine the homeowner and neighbor's identifications. He also questioned the State's police officer witnesses regarding the burglary investigation, field show-up procedures, and truck search. Highlighting the lack of fingerprint evidence, the defense stressed in closing argument the absence of direct evidence showing that Riveira entered the home.
The deputy prosecuting attorney questioned defense counsel's truthfulness during rebuttal argument. He told the jury: "the folks [defense counsel is] trying to trick are you with his interpretation of the evidence."7 (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel failed to object.
The jury found Riveira guilty of burglary in the first degree.8
Riveira challenges several remarks the deputy prosecuting attorney made during closing argument. Prosecutorial misconduct, he contends, necessitates vacating his conviction. We find two instances worthy of review:
(1) the prosecuting attorney's references to the burglary's impact on the homeowner's household, followed by a plea to hold Riveira accountable "for what he did to that family"; and (2) the prosecuting attorney's comment accusing defense counsel of trickery.
The State concedes that these remarks were improper.9 But it argues that they were not reversible prosecutorial misconduct. We agree.
Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard. State v. Klinge, 92 Hawai‘i 577,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hirata
...is no difference between the plain error and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standards of review. See State v. Riveira, 149 Hawai‘i 427, 431 n.10, 494 P.3d 1160, 1164 n.10 (2021) (observing that "courts have considered the same three [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt] factors" when con......
-
State v. Benedicto
..."[A] reviewing court will vacate a conviction if there is a reasonable possibility that the conduct might have affected the trial's outcome." Id. (citing State v. Senteno, 69 Haw. 366, 742 P.2d 369, 372 (1987)). "Factors considered are: (1) the nature of the conduct; (2) the promptness of a......
-
State v. Freeman
...prosecutor's alleged misconduct amounted to plain error" that affected the defendant's substantial rights. State v. Riveira, 149 Hawai‘i 427, 431 n.10, 494 P.3d 1160, 1164 n.10 (2021) (citation omitted). When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the following factors are consi......