Posts

Showing posts with the label discovery

HSC Defines Outliers of Attorney General's Investigatory Powers

  In re: Investigation of KAHEA (HSC September 21, 2021) Background. The construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea sparked a protest movement. KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, is a community-based, tax-exempt, charitable organization, opposes TMT construction. KAHEA operates the Aloha ‘Aina Support Fund. It affords logistical support to TMT protestors and in some cases provides bail when appropriate. KAHEA also challenged the Board of Land and Natural Resources through lawsuits and appeals.   The State’s Attorney General investigated KAHEA. In 2019, the AG served on First Hawaiian Bank a subpoena overing KAHEA’s bank records generated over an approximately two-year period. The AG demanded disclosure of financial records: monthly statements, signature/account cards, debit card assignments, powers of attorney, deposit tickets, cancelled checks, debit and credit memos, loan applications, notice of adverse actions against account holde...

A New Way to Read Rule 48 and Introducing Spoliation Remedy to Brady Violations

State v. Alkire (HSC June 25, 2020) Background. Lisa Alkire was driving her red jeep during the early morning hours in October on the Likelike Highway when she was pulled over the police and arrested for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. She was taken to the Kalihi police station. Five days later, her lawyer faxed a request to preserve various materials to the HPD Central Receiving Division. The letter requested video and audio recordings that may contain evidence of the case. It listed Alkire’s information, date of arrest, citation number, and State ID booking number. The request was also cc’d to the prosecutor’s office. The next day, counsel faxed Central Receiving an addendum that specifically requested to preserve video from the Kalihi police station. That too was cc’d to the prosecutor’s office. Hard copies were mailed to the prosecutor’s office, Central Receiving, and the main HPD Headquarters. Alkire was charged on November 1, 2016. Alkire filed a motion to comp...

HSC Distinguishes Between DNA and Laser Guns and Electronic Scales

State v. Texeira (HSC June 19, 2020) Background. Koma Texeira was charged with the murder of Jon Togioka. Togioka was shot on Halloween night with a .22-caliber firearm near Hanapepe, Kauai. Texiera and four others were arrested. Texeria was indicted for murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. In the same indictment, Clayton Kona was charged with firearms offenses. Kona pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution in the first degree and a firearms charge in exchange for testifying in the case against Texeira. Prior to trial, the prosecution filed a motion to determine the voluntariness of a statement purported to be by Texeira. It was a letter written in jail. The prosecution included a declaration stating that the letter states that Texeira shot Togioka in self-defense and that the letter was given to Kona. Texeira opposed the motion on the grounds that the letter was not disclosed until 280 days after the prosecution learned about the letter and one month before trial. At...

Officer’s False Testimony Prompts New Trial Even Though it did not Pertain to the Defendant’s Guilt

State v. Stone (HSC June 15, 2020) Background. Kentaru Stone was charged with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree. The prosecution provided five Honolulu Police Department reports to the defense in discovery. The lead officer in the police investigation was HPD Officer Douglas Korenic II. The police department also has a “found property policy.” Property recovered after an arrest that does not belong to the arrestee is itemized and listed a “found property” for others to claim. The only found property report here was an iPhone. In the prosecution’s opening statement, the prosecutor said that Officer Korenic approached a man at a picnic table at Ala Moana Beach Park at 3:45 in the morning. He talked to the man “when all of a sudden the defendant makes a arm gesture. He uses his arm and he flicks away a small baggie, which Officer Korenic . . . recognizes this substance to possibly be crystal methamphetamine.” The defense posed an alternative theory. Counsel in her open...

Counsel Deemed Ineffective for Failing to Giving Defendant Discovery and Failing to Trying to Subpoena a Witness that Might have Asserted Privilege.

Batalona v. State (HSC March 19, 2018) Background. Albert Batalona, Sean Matsunaga, and Jacob Hayme were charged with bank robbery in federal court. The charges against Batalona were dropped and Matsunaga and Hayme were prosecuted with additional firearm charges. The State took on Batalona’s bank robbery case by way of indictment along with attempted murder in the first degree, and firearms offenses. In the meantime, Matsunaga and Hayme reached plea agreements in federal court. In a recorded statement, Matsunaga said that he had shot at the officer involved in the case. At Batalona’s motions in limine, the prosecution reiterated that it would not be calling Matsunaga and requested that the recorded statement be excluded at trial. At trial the prosecution adduced evidence that in the middle of the day, Batalona, Matsunaga, Hayme, and Roger Dailey went into a bank with ski masks and firearms. They took $120,000 and left. Batalona and Matsunaga had AR-15s, Hayme had an AK-47, and ...

HSC: The Constitutional Right to Inspect the Scene (Even on Private Property!)

State v. Tetu (HSC December 5, 2016) Background. Robert Tetu was charged with burglary in the second degree. Specifically, it was alleged that Tetu burglarized the basement of Maunaihi Terrace, a condominium in Honolulu. Throughout the discovery process, the defense received relevant police reports, surveillance footage, eight photographs, and two diagrams of the scene. Before trial, Tetu’s lawyer went to the condominium to inspect the scene but was barred entry and instructed to coordinate with the property manager. Tetu’s lawyer emailed a request and cc’d the prosecuting attorney to the property manager. The manager responded that it would present the request to the board of directors for the condominium. Counsel received no further response. Tetu filed a motion to compel discovery on the grounds that it sought access to inspect the premises. Specifically, he argued that the “defense must examine the area from its own perspective.” He also argued that the disclosed reports, ...

Discovery Shenanigans and Race-Based Sentencing

State v. David (ICA December 15, 2014) Background. Peter David was charged with second-degree murder of Santhony Albert and second-degree assault with a dangerous instrument of Torokas Kikku. During the opening statement, the prosecutor, Darrell Wong, told the jury that the three of them were at Kikku’s apartment in Waipahu. David and Albert were drinking and wrestling. At some point, David’s cousins point out that David had a cut on his nose. The prosecutor told the jury that at that point, David said “[n]obody does this to me, make me look like this, beat me up.” After the opening statement, David’s counsel, Edward Aquino, objected that that statement was not made part of the discovery. The prosecutor responded that his understanding of discovery rules required only disclosure of written or recorded statements by the defendant. The circuit court—without correcting the prosecutor’s understanding of the rules—ruled that it was not going to preclude the statement, but give David...

The Raw Materials of a Defense

State v. Scott (HSC October 16, 2013) Background. Kevin Scott and his brother Jefferson Scott were indicted separately out of the same incident involving Leif Martin and Kerry Martin. Jefferson Scott was indicted first and convicted of some of the offenses. Months later, Kevin was indicted for committing assault in the second degree upon Leif, two counts of terroristic threatening in the first upon Leif and Kerry and one count of terroristic threatening in the first degree by a common scheme. Kevin demanded a jury trial. Scott Requests Transcripts, Audio, and Video Records from his Brother’s Trial . . . Before trial, the prosecution filed notice of its intention to use evidence that Jefferson assisted Kevin after Kevin got into a dispute with the Martins. Kevin filed a motion to continue the trial on the grounds that he needed more time to get transcripts from Jefferson’s trial. The transcripts would assist him in his defense. Kevin’s counsel explained that the reason for not g...