Territory Hawai`i v. Caminos, S. 2680 AND 2681.
| Decision Date | 28 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | NOS. 2680 AND 2681.,S. 2680 AND 2681. |
| Citation | 38 Haw. 628 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF HAWAII v. CLARENCE C. CAMINOS. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. A. M. CRISTY, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
Where an indictment charging the defendant with receiving a bribe is framed in the language of the statute alleging a specific corrupt intent, proof of that question is thereby placed directly in issue.
Under an indictment charging the defendant with receiving a bribe, evidence of other separate and independent crimes of bribery or attempted bribery committed by the defendant at or about the same time and not too remote, is admissible upon the issue of the particular intent, knowledge or purpose of the defendant with respect to the crime for which he is on trial.
Proof of the defendant's guilt of other separate and independent crimes than that for which he is on trial is sufficient if the evidence thereof proves or tends to prove the defendant guilty of the commission of such other crimes. The evidence need not of itself establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
P. A. Lee, O. P. Soares, and F. Patterson (also on the briefs) for plaintiff in error.
A. R. Hawkins, Assistant Public Prosecutor (also on the brief), for defendant in error.
Following trial by jury upon two consolidated indictments of seven counts, each charging the receipt of bribes, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to aggregate terms of imprisonment and fines of ten years and $5,000, respectively.
The first count of the first indictment alleged: “That Clarence C. Caminos, at the City and County of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, on or about the 18th day of August, 1945, he, the said Clarence C. Caminos, being then and there an executive officer, to–wit, a duly commissioned, appointed and acting police officer of the Police Department of the City and County of Honolulu, Territory aforesaid, in disregard of his office as a police officer, and perverting the trust reposed in him, and for the private gain of him, the said Clarence C. Caminos, under color of his office, did, unlawfully, corruptly, wilfully and feloniously take, accept and receive of one Paul Au, then and there being, the sum of Nine Hundred Dollars ($900.00), in money, a more particular description of which is to the Grand Jury unknown, as a bribe, gift and gratuity under an agreement and with an understanding that he, the said Clarence C. Caminos, would not, in the exercise of his function in his capacity, as a police officer aforesaid, apprehend and arrest the said Paul Au, Alfred B. T. Choy and Robert Hosoi, also known as Harry Hosoi, and divers and sundry other persons, to the Grand Jury unknown, for conducting, carrying on, playing and engaging in gambling and gambling games in the City and County of Honolulu, in violation of and prohibited by the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, which matter of the said apprehension and arrest was then and there pending and which might by law come and be brought before him, the said Clarence C. Caminos, in his official capacity aforesaid, and did then and there and thereby commit the crime of receiving a bribe, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
Except as to the date of the receipt of the alleged bribe and the amount thereof, the other four counts of the indictment are laid in the same words as the first count.
The first indictment alleges payments and the receipt of bribe moneys paid to the defendant during the period August 18, 1945, to and including September 16, 1945, at seven–day intervals. The dates and the amounts laid in the respective counts are:
Count 1, on or about August 18, 1945, the sum of $900; count 2, on or about August 25, 1945, the sum of $500; count 3, on or about September 2, 1945, the sum of $2000; count 4, on or about September 9, 1945, the sum of $500; count 5, on or about September 16, 1945, the sum of $900.
The second indictment contains two counts and is laid in the same words as the first indictment. Count 1 alleges receipt of $3,900 on or about January 6, 1946; count 2, the receipt of $2,100 on or about January 13, 1946.
The crime charged in each of the seven counts is defined in section 11071 of Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as follows:
“Every executive, legislative, judicial or civil officer, or any master in chancery, or any person acting or summoned as a juror; or any appraiser, referee, arbitrator or umpire, who corruptly accepts any gift, gratuity, beneficial service, or act or promise of either, under an agreement or with an understanding that he shall in the exercise of any function in his capacity as aforesaid, vote, decide, or act in any particular manner in any cause, question, proceeding or matter pending or that may by law come or be brought before him, shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor not more than five years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”
The seven separate crimes are temporally laid as consecutive weekly bribe payments during two periods; the first period, the latter part of the year 1945; and the second period, during the month of January 1946. Though not alleged in either indictment as a continuing offense, the theory of the prosecution and the evidence in support thereof were both of that nature and character. All seven counts being identical in terms and verbiage, except as to dates of the separate specific offenses and amounts, the two indictments were consolidated for trial for the reason, inter alia, that in each indictment the same persons were involved in what appeared to be one single transaction of bribe giving and bribe taking.
Upon conviction under each indictment writs of error issued. A motion to consolidate the causes in this court was granted. There are forty–six assigned errors in each case. Of these seventeen are relied upon and, as consolidated, will be considered jointly.
Assignment of errors numbered 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, being specified errors relied upon numbered 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, are directed to the receipt in evidence of the testimony of five witnesses on behalf of the Territory of Hawaii. The plaintiff in error alleges prejudicial and reversible error in the admission of their testimony upon the ground that the testimony constitutes evidence of the commission, by the defendant as well as by another person, of other separate and independent crimes than that for which he was then upon trial.
We have meticulously reviewed the record, considered all the specifications of errors relied upon, and conclude that it is upon specified errors numbered 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 that disposition of the two causes rests. We find no merit in the contentions urged in respect of the other specifications, and that no error was committed by the trial court in respect of the remaining twelve.
We are not here concerned with the rule of evidence permitting inquiry of a witness of prior criminal convictions as affecting his credibility or the weight of his testimony. The question presented is whether the admission in evidence of the testimony of the five witnesses as proof of the commission by the defendant of separate independent crimes, other than those for which he was indicted and tried, constituted prejudicial and reversible error under the facts presented by the record. The substance of their testimony was:
The witness Thomas G. Rodenhurst testified that in the month of November 1945, he was a lieutenant in the Honolulu Police Department in charge of the Pearl City police station, and the defendant was captain of the vice squad in Honolulu; that the defendant came to Pearl City and approached the witness upon the subject of assisting him, the defendant, in establishing cockfighting under police protection in that district. He assured the witness that “you'll get yours.” The cockfighting was to be transferred from district to district thereafter to evade detection. Defendant was to make all arrangements with the witness's superior officers in the country district. The witness testified that he would have no part of the scheme, and refused to participate.
The witness Lawrence C. Loo, an admitted professional gambler, testifying under immunity from prosecution, corroborating the testimony of William C. Clark, the principal witness for the prosecution, stated that he operated a gambling game in Honolulu during the months of August and September, 1945, until the early part of 1946; that on behalf of the establishment he paid William C. Clark, a police sergeant on the vice squad then serving under the defendant, the sum of $700 per week for protection against vice squad raids. He further testified that he collected the sum of $700 per week from another professional gambler in Honolulu during the year 1945 and also gave this money to Clark for the same purpose. The witness was not an owner or partner in the latter establishment, but acted only as a messenger for delivery of the money to Clark without remuneration, and as an accommodation to the owner. The payments were made under an arrangement whereby the witness met Clark each week and gave him the sum of $1,400 in currency in two rolls of $700 each. These payments continued for a period of ten months.
The witness Richard Kazuo Mikami, on rebuttal, testified that during the months of November and December 1945, he was employed at a service station in Pearl City at which the defendant purchased gasoline; that on one occasion at the service station in the month of November 1945, he gave the sum of $200 to the defendant for prior rental of the defendant's beach cottage at Mokuleia, Oahu. He had occupied the cottage for a time during the years 1943 and 1944. This witness could not recall whether at the time of tender of the $200 he told the defendant that the money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Castro, 12150
...Apao, 59 Haw. 625, 638-39, 586 P.2d 250, 259 (1978); State v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, 348-54, 537 P.2d 724, 729-32 (1975); Territory v. Caminos, 38 Haw. 628, 635-37 (1950). Yet even when the evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts tends to establish a fact of consequence to the determination ......
-
State v. Iaukea
...to several problems. The jury may believe that the defendant is guilty merely because he is a likely person to do such acts. Territory v. Caminos, 38 Haw. 628 (1950). Furthermore, the defendant may be unprepared to defend himself against the evidence of collateral crimes. State v. Spreigl, ......
-
State v. Murphy
...reveals that a defendant has committed crimes other than the one for which he is on trial is ordinarily inadmissible. Territory v. Caminos, 38 Haw. 628, 635 (1950). In State v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975), we noted the difficulties which may arise when evidence is introduced wh......
-
State v. Carvelo
...crimes committed by the accused is ordinarily not admissible. The general rule and the underlying reason for it are stated in Territory v. Caminos, 38 Haw. 628, 635, as follows: 'The rule firmly established in policy, tradition, and law, is that evidence, the purpose of which is to prove th......