State v. Sua
| Decision Date | 28 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 21480.,21480. |
| Citation | 987 P.2d 959,92 Haw. 61 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alomalietoa SUA, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Bryan K. Sano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for the petitioner-appellee State of Hawai`i on the writ.
The petitioner-appellee State of Hawai`i applies to this court for a writ of certiorari to review the opinion by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in State v. Sua, 92 Hawai`i 78, 987 P.2d 976 (Haw.Ct.App.1999) [hereinafter, the "ICA's opinion"], vacating the first circuit court's judgment, guilty conviction, and sentence, filed on March 9, 1998, and remanding the case for a new trial. The prosecution argues that the ICA should not have held that the respondent-appellant Alomalietoa Sua's right to confrontation was violated at trial. Specifically, the prosecution suggests that the ICA erred in holding that "receipt of a witness's grand jury testimony under the past recollection recorded exception to the rule against hearsay at the criminal trial of [Sua] violated the right of confrontation guaranteed him by the Hawai`i Constitution." ICA at 78, 987 P.2d at 976.
We agree with the prosecution that the ICA's holding was erroneous. In contrast to the ICA's opinion, we hold that, under certain circumstances, receipt of grand jury testimony pursuant to a firmly rooted exception to the general rule against hearsay may adequately preserve a defendant's right of cross-examination. We leave undisturbed the ICA's holding that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict. Furthermore, we hold that the Sua's remaining points of error on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, we reverse the ICA's opinion and affirm the trial court's judgment, guilty conviction, and sentence, filed on March 9, 1998.
Jonah Gooman's grandmother owned two rental units in a building in Waipahu, located in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai`i. Sometime during the week prior to June 18, 1996, Sua contacted Gooman and asked him for a refund of deposit money relating to a rental unit that Sua's brother had recently vacated. Gooman explained to Sua that he knew nothing about the deposit money. On June 18, 1996, Gooman was driving an automobile in which Sua, Cory Kaowili, and Trent Puahi were the passengers. All four had known each other since elementary school. While Gooman was driving, Sua again demanded the deposit money. When Gooman stopped the car and looked back, he noticed that Sua was "fiddling with a gun." Sua continued to demand money and then struck Gooman in the head with the butt of the gun. Kaowili gave Sua approximately $120.00 in the hopes that Sua would "back off." Sua then exited the car.
On July 23, 1997, the grand jury returned an indictment against Sua, charging him with robbery in the first degree, pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-840(1)(b) (1993),2 in connection with the foregoing events.
On December 24, 1997, during Sua's trial, Kaowili testified in relevant part as follows:
When Puahi took the witness stand, he testified in relevant part as follows:
Gooman testified in relevant part as follows:
At this point, the prosecution offered Gooman's grand jury transcript into evidence. Sua objected on the ground that he had not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Gooman regarding the substance of Gooman's grand jury testimony. On December 26, 1997, the circuit court allowed Gooman's grand jury testimony to be read to the jury, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 802.1(4) (1993).3
Following the reading of his grand jury testimony, Gooman testified further in relevant part as follows:
Gooman proceeded to testify that he had gone to the hospital emergency room on June 18, 1996 and that he remembered a lot of police officers coming to his house on that date. Gooman testified that he was unable to remember anything else about the alleged incident.
The prosecution's final witness, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Detective Derek Shimatsu, testified as follows regarding telephone conversations in which he had engaged with Puahi and Kaowili:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rabago
...ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial." State v. Sua, 92 Hawai`i 61, 69, 987 P.2d 959, 967 (1999) (quoting State v. Pinero, 70 Haw. 509, 527, 778 P.2d 704, 716 (1989) (quotation omitted)) (brackets in original). In ......
-
Birano v. State
...weigh the demeanor of those witnesses." Batalona v. State, 142 Hawai‘i 84, 102, 414 P.3d 136, 154 (2018) (quoting State v. Sua, 92 Hawai‘i 61, 70, 987 P.2d 959, 968 (1999) )."Indeed, the main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-exami......
-
State Of Haw.‘i v. Santos
...showing of the “unavailability” of the declarant 1 and that the statement “ ‘bear[s] adequate indicia of reliability[,]’ ” Sua II, 92 Hawai‘i at 71, 987 P.2d at 969 (quoting State v. Moore, 82 Hawai‘i 202, 223, 921 P.2d 122, 143 (1996) (quoting State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 361, 845 P.2d ......
-
State v. Schnabel
...court will not be considered on appeal. This is true even where the testimony is objected to on other grounds."); State v. Sua, 92 Hawai‘i 61, 76, 987 P.2d 959, 974 (1999) (determining that defendant waived the issue of whether certain prior inconsistent statements were properly recorded pu......