Territory Hawai`i v. Aquino

• Decision Date: 02 July 1959
• Docket Number: NO. 4035.,4035.
• Citation: 43 Haw. 347
• Parties: TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. POLICARPIO AQUINO.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

43 Haw. 347

TERRITORY OF HAWAII

v.POLICARPIO AQUINO.

NO. 4035.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued October 1, 1958.

Decided July 2, 1959.

ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. FRANK A. MCKINLEY, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

The mere fact that an admission or confession is made while the maker is in custody of the police, or even while confined under arrest, is not sufficient of itself to affect its admissibility, providing that it was voluntarily made.

Upon his arrest, a person involved in a homicide was found to be wounded. He was taken immediately to the scene of the homicide, where he was identified, then taken to emergency hospital, subsequently hospitalized, under guard, for five days and was not charged with the commission of a crime until the day after he was released from the hospital. At his trial on a charge of manslaughter, the circuit court allowed into evidence, statements and a confession of the defendant obtained by the police after his arrest and before he was charged. Prior to the admission in evidence of such statements and confession, the trial judge was, by uncontradicted testimony, fully informed of the conditions and attendant circumstances under which the several statements and admissions were made and satisfied himself of the voluntariness thereof and ruled that they were voluntarily made and were admissible in evidence. The sole objection made––and exceptions saved––on behalf of the defendant to the admission of the testimony, admissions and confession, the latter incorporated in prosecution's exhibit “O,” was that the defendant was not charged with the commission of a crime or taken before a magistrate within forty–eight hours after his arrest. There was no showing whatsoever that defendant was by his detention coerced in the making of any of the statements, admissions or confession, testified to as having been made by him, or that his detention in any way affected the voluntariness of the statements and admissions made by the defendant. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in the admission into evidence of the statements, admissions and confession (prosecution's exhibit “O”) made by the defendant.

In a homicide case wherein the issue is self–defense by the defendant, the offer of proof of the criminal record of the deceased was properly rejected by the trial judge, when there was no offer of proof that defendant had knowledge of such record of the deceased.

When a summation of the evidence discloses that there was not merely a scintilla, but with the statements and admission by defendant, as testified by witnesses, and also prosecution's exhibit “O” there was amply sufficient evidence to justify submission of the case to the jury, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal.

Upon appeal, refusal or giving of requested instructions must be interpreted, or considered, in connection with the entirety of the court's charge to the jury. Therefore, the giving or the refusal by the trial court of certain requested instructions will not be deemed prejudicial to the defendant when the entirety of the trial court's charge to the jury fairly and clearly presented the law as favorable to the defendant as he was entitled to under the testimony and the evidence of the case.

James A. King ( Bouslog & Symonds with him on the briefs) for plaintiff in error.

Lincoln J. Ishida, Assistant Public Prosecutor ( Ernest S. Yamane, Assistant Public Prosecutor on the brief), for defendant in error.

Takashi Kitaoka, Assistant Public Prosecutor, was present but did not argue.

RICE, C. J., STAINBACK AND MARUMOTO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY RICE, C. J.

This case is before the court by writ of error to the circuit court, first circuit, Territory of Hawaii, the Honorable Frank A. McKinley, presiding.

Defendant–plaintiff in error, Policarpio Aquino, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was indicted for the crime of manslaughter (violation of Section 11396, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, now Section 291–7, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955) on August 18, 1955. He was charged with, on February 5, 1955, having unlawfully, etc., without malice aforethought and without authority, justification and extenuation by law, struck, stabbed and cut one Sabas Agcaoili with a knife, thus giving him certain wounds from which on the same day Agcaoili did die.

The defendant, having entered a plea of “not guilty,” went to trial before a jury in the circuit court and on the sixth day of trial was found guilty as charged. He was thereafter sentenced to ten years in Oahu Prison.

As early as the examination of jurors on voir dire, the defendant had indicated that he would defend on the ground of self defense.

At the conclusion of the case in chief for the prosecution and after the prosecution had rested, on March 14, 1957, counsel for the defendant moved for a directed verdict, alleging that there was not evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction and that proof beyond a reasonable doubt did not attach at that time. The motion for directed verdict was denied. Thereafter the defendant took the stand and testified on his own behalf. Two other witnesses were called and examined on behalf of the defendant. The defense then rested and, there being no rebuttal, again moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, which was denied.

There are seven assignments of error, which are in substance that the circuit court:

(1) Erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested in defendant's requested instruction number 8, in that such instruction was a proper statement of the law of self–defense as adopted by this court;

(2) Erred in charging the jury as requested by the Territory of Hawaii in its requested instruction number 14 and in refusing to charge the jury as requested in defendant's instruction number 10, in that the latter constituted a portion of the language contained in Territory's instruction number 14, but none of the incorrect and improper language of said number 14;

(3) Erred in charging the jury as requested by the Territory of Hawaii in its requested instruction number 15B, in that it did not correctly or properly state the law of self–defense as laid down by this court, was ambiguous and misleading, and served to confuse the jury;

(4) Erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested in defendant's requested instruction number 1, to the effect that the jury should find the defendant not guilty, which instruction embodied the substance of defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, made at the conclusion of all the evidence submitted in the case and which was denied;

(5) Erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal made at the conclusion of the Territory's case;

(6) Erred in refusing to permit defendant to introduce evidence of the actual character and reputation of the deceased (for whose death he was being tried) “as a person of violent and turbulent nature; more specifically, but not exclusively,” the court's refusal of evidence as to the police record of deceased and the court's rejection of defendant's offer of proof as to the aforesaid;

(7) Erred in admitting into evidence the written and signed statement of defendant obtained by the police (Exhibit “O”) and all other testimony relating to statements, admissions and the alleged confession of defendant obtained from defendant more than 48 hours after his arrest and his first having been placed in police custody, “and while he was illegally detained” and in violation of the so–called “48–hour law” (Section 10709, R. L. H. 1945, as amended, Section 255–9, R. L. H. 1955) “and in violation of the due process of law clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; * * *.”

The defendant's version of the facts, as given in the “Statement of the Case” in the “Opening Brief of Plaintiff in Error” is as hereinafter quoted.

“The locale of the offense charged was a rooming and tenement area at Corkscrew Lane, just off Fort and Kukui Streets in downtown Honolulu. Defendant had previously lived there and knew the residents of the area. He frequently returned to visit. One late Saturday afternoon he visited the area and ended up in an apartment with some friends, drinking beer and watching television. A few hours later the group dispersed. Outside, in the alleyway between buildings and near Corkscrew Lane defendant and Agcaoili met and had words. Agcaoili lived in the area, but further down toward Corkscrew Lane from where defendant had been, or where they met. Defendant stated Agcaoili had been at the apartment drinking, at least part of the time. Government witnesses placed him there earlier but were vague as to whether he had been there later.

“Defendant and Agcaoili got into a fight. Defendant said Agcaoili first grabbed and struck him with his hands, they wrestled about on the ground, defendant bested Agcaoili who then broke off the encounter and ran off to his (Agcaoili's) room. He returned with a knife in his upraised right hand and rushed at defendant, who in turn raised his left hand and had his left palm slashed open; defendant, however, was able to cling to Agcaoili's knife hand with both his cut left hand and his right hand. They then wrestled again, this time for possession of the knife, and again rolled upon the ground. Defendant was able to seize the knife and stabbed Agcaoili with it. The foregoing is substantially the testimony of defendant and is substantially unrebutted.

“One Enfiel testified as a prosecution witness that he was called to the scene of the fight by his son; that it was dark; that he made out two figures, defendant and Agcaoili, struggling with each other on the ground; that defendant appeared to be on top; that Enfiel tried to stop the fight by pushing Aquino aside and he (Enfiel) got cut on the shoulder so he ran off. He said it was dark, that he at no time saw any knife and that he didn't know...