Sentencing Jury Needs to Know the Extended Terms, but not Parole.
State
v. Keohokapu (HSC May 15, 2012)
Background. George Keohokapu was charged with murder in the
second degree. HRS § 707-701.5. The prosecution later gave notice that
Keohokapu was eligible for extended terms of imprisonment as a persistent
offender. HRS §§ 706-661 and 662(1). Keohokapu, his wife Kauilani Keohokapu,
and his brother, went to club "Komo Mai." Steven Wilcox and his
friend Robin Gregory were there too. At some point in the night, Keohokapu got
mad because Gregory was apparently staring at Kauilani. Keohokapu left the club
and went to his car. Kauilani followed and an argument started. The brother
came out and joined the argument. The brother grabbed Kauilani's arm as Wilcox
walked out. He approached them and they started arguing. Keohokapu fought with
Wilcox. A witness later testified that he saw Keohokapu with a metal object or
a knife. Keohokapu collided with Wilcox and Wilcox was stabbed in the chest.
Keohokapu drove away and Wilcox died from his injuries.
Trial. On the first day of jury selection, the trial court
informed the prospective jurors that there had been some publicity associated
with the case namely that Wilcox was depicted as a Good Samaritan. Keohokapu
did not object to the trial court's statement. Voir dire lasted six days.
Jurors told the court that they had been exposed to the media coverage of the
case. Keohokapu moved to strike them for cause. The court denied the
challenges. Nine of the twelve jurors on the panel testified that they had
heard about the case on the t.v. news, newspapers, or both. Five of the nine
recalled hearing that Wilcox was a Good Samaritan.
During the trial, Keohokapu argued that Wilcox was
the initial aggressor and that he had brass knuckles. The jury rejected the
self-defense claim and found Wilcox guilty of manslaughter. The prosecution
filed notice of its intention to seek extended terms at sentencing. The
sentencing phase began.
Sentencing
Trial. The prosecution introduced
evidence of incidents where Keohokapu was a domestic abuser and that he had
attacked a man named Gregory Balga. The rest of his criminal history was also
presented to the jury including crimes of violence. Kauilani also testified
about the violent relationship she had with Keohokapu. During her testimony,
Kauilani had difficulty recalling incidents in the past and was constantly
referring to police reports. Finally, the prosecution moved to admit a statement
she wrote from a 1996 police report. It was admitted over Keohokapu's
objection. Balga also testified. The statement was read to the jury but the statement
itself stayed out. When the prosecution rested, Keohokapu presented evidence
that he himself had been abused as a child and that he had regretted his past.
The trial court instructed the jury on extended
terms. The court instructed the jury that normally, a manslaughter conviction
carries the maximum sentence of an indeterminate term of 20 years with the
possibility of parole. However, an extended term carries life with the possibility
of parole. The court instructed that an "indeterminate term" is a
sentence "subject to termination at any after service of a minimum term
determined by the Hawai'i Paroling Authority." The court also gave
instructions as to what the HPA does in determining a minimum term. It also provided
definitions for parole and cautioned not to speculate about what the HPA may or
may not do. The jury found that the Keohokapu was a persistent offender and
that it was necessary for the protection of the public to extend the
manslaughter term to life with the possibility of parole. Keohokapu appealed.
The ICA affirmed.
What to do when
a Jury is Under the Influence. A
defendant has the right to a jury that is "substantially free from the
biasing effects of inflammatory pre-trial publicity." State v. Pauline,
100 Hawai'i 356, 366, 60 P.3d 306, 316 (2002). Once the defendant claims that
external influences have infringed upon the right to a fair trial, the trial
court must determine if the influences are substantially prejudicial. State
v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383, 394, 894 P.2d 80, 91 (1995). If it does not
arise to the level of substantial prejudice, the court has "no duty to
interrogate the jury." State v. Williamson, 72 Haw. 97, 102, 807
P.2d 593, 596 (1991). However, once the court determines that outside
influences could substantially prejudice the right to a fair trial, prejudice
is presumed and can be rebutted by the prosecution. Id. At that point,
the court must investigate the totality of the circumstances to determine the
impact of the outside influences.
Jury was Not Prejudiced--Presumptively
or Actually--by the Trial Court's Publicity Statement. The HSC rejected Keohokapu's argument that the jury
selection was fundamentally flawed when the court read the publicity statement
about Wilcox being a Good Samaritan. The HSC noted that there are three factors
that weigh in favor of presumed prejudice: (1) "a barrage of inflammatory
publicity immediately prior to trial amounting to a huge . . . wave of public
passion"; (2) the nature of the media accounts--factual accounts being
less prejudicial than editorials or cartoons; and (3) "whether the media accounts
contained inflammatory, prejudicial information that was not admissible at
trial." State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i at 316, 60 P.3d at 366.
Additionally, the appellate court examines whether the trial court took steps
to shield the jury from prejudicial media exposure. Id. at 317, 60 P.3d
at 367. The HSC agreed that it would have been better if the trial court did not
read the publicity statement, but this did not give rise to prejudice
warranting reversal. None of the three factors were met.
Nor was actual prejudice found. Actual prejudice
requires the defendant to show that "jurors exhibited actual partiality or
hostility that could not be laid aside." State v. Pauline, 100 Hawai'i
at 315, 60 P.3d at 365. Nothing in the record shows anything like that.
Testimony--once
Recollection Refreshed--need not Track Contents of the Writing. The HSC next examined evidentiary issues that
arose during the sentencing phase of the trial. First, it examined Kauilani's
testimony. She could not recall specific instances in which she was abused. The
prosecution asked her to read a police report to refresh her recollection. She
read it and testified that she remembered. She testified about specific details
about an incident involving domestic violence. The HSC patently rejected
Keohokapu's argument that this was improper. "When used to refresh [a]
witness's present recollection, a writing is solely employed to jog the memory
of the testifying witness." State v. Dibenedetto, 80 Hawai'i 138,
144, 906 P.2d 624, 630 (App. 1995). If the writing does not refresh the
person's recollection, the witness cannot testify about or read the contents of
the writing. State v. Espiritu, 117 Hawai'i 127, 137, 176 P.3d 885, 895
(2008). That fact that Kauilani's testimony contained details that were not
part of the writing used to refresh her recollection had no part in the
analysis.
Admitting the Statement
from the Police Report Wasn't Error Either. The HSC also examined the admission of Kauilani's written statement in
a 1996 police report based on HRE Rule 802.1(4):
(4) Past recollection recorded. A memorandum or
record concerning a matter about which the witness once had knowledge but now
has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and
accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter
was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted,
the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be
received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
The HSC held that there was no error in reading the
statement into evidence. Kauilani testified that she remembered the incident
from 1996 and identified the statement as her own writing even though she never
signed it. Finally, she noted that she wrote it on the day after the incident. This
was sufficient foundation to read the statement to the jury.
Sentencing
Juries Finds the Facts, the Sentencing Court Imposes the Extended Term Sentence
(if it wants to). Before a court can
impose an extended term of imprisonment under HRS § 706-661, the prosecution
must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt "that an extended term of
imprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public and that" the
defendant is one of the six enumerated kinds of offenders listed in HRS §
706-662. Juries for extended term sentences are relatively new in Hawai'i and
there are currently no standard jury instructions. The HSC agreed with
Keohokapu that it was improper for the circuit court to provide instructions
informing the jury about parole, the HPA, and indeterminate terms of
imprisonment.
According to the HSC, the jury is asked to
determine two facts: (1) whether an extended term is necessary to protect the
public; and (2) whether the defendant is one of the enumerated offenders. If
both facts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury's job is over. The
sentencing court ultimately considers whether to impose the extended term. See
HRS § 706-661 ("The court may
sentence a person who satisfies the criteria for any of the categories set
forth in section 706-662 to an extended term").
Even Though it
may be Relevant, Juries Should not Know that Parole was Possible. The HSC was aware of the jury's duty and even noted
that to determine if an extended term was necessary to protect the public, it
is only natural for the jury to learn what the original term is as well as the
extended term. However, apprising jurors about post-conviction actions by other
governmental agencies should be avoided. The HSC relied heavily on People v.
Ramos, 689 P.2d 430 (Cal. 1984), which held that instructions to sentencing
juries allowing them to consider the many different post-conviction actions by
other governmental entities like the parole board, commutation by the governor,
or even review by the trial court, were improper. Id. at 441-444. The
California Supreme Court explained that it was "inconsistent with the
jury's proper decision-making role" and invited it to speculate about what
would happen. Id.
According to the HSC, the "jury can make an
intelligent determination as to whether it is necessary to incarcerate the
defendant for an extended term to protect the public if instructed that the
term will involve maximums of twenty years to life." It does not need to
know about parole or even if the defendant will serve the entire term--extended
or not. The jury did not need to know that parole was possible.
Chief Justice
Recktenwald's Concurrence and Dissent. The
CJ disagreed with this approach. He wrote that simply informing the jury that
the extended term would move it from 20 years imprisonment to life is inaccurate.
It denies the fact that Keohokapu would be eligible for parole. This eligibility,
according to the CJ, is relevant and necessary for the jury to know about in
order to determine if the extended term is needed to protect the public. Chief
Justice Recktenwald also took issue with this approach because in some
circumstances, the extended term goes from life with parole to life without
parole. This approach would make this distinction impossible to articulate to
the jury. Justice Nakayama joined.
Comments