Posts

Showing posts with the label waiver

ICA: poor people outside the circuit of their trial either appear in chains and in custody or pay their own way

  State v. Campbell (ICA September 19, 2024) Background. Corey Campbell was charged with assaulting a police officer in the first degree and two petty misdemeanors while she was on vacation from Massachusetts. She was arrested and detained because she could not afford to bail out. The court let her out on conditions of release and allowed her to “fly back home to Massachusetts and live in Massachusetts.” She went home. She made eleven appearances in court by zoom. Trial was not set for more than a year after the charges were brought.   In advance of her trial date, her court-appointed counsel (the public defender withdrew based on irreconcilable differences), filed a motion for the court to pay the expenses of returning to Hawai'i to attend her trial. The requested costs included airfare, lodging, and transportation. The court—with the Honorable Judge Kirstin M. Hamman—granted the motion and approved the order. Weeks later, it rescinded the order on the grounds that it ...

When the Pleading must Descend into Particulars

State v. Jardine (HSC April 29, 2022) Background. John Keoni Jardine got into a fight with his neighbor and hit him in the head with a baseball bat. The hit caused a “left occipital skull fracture” and “epidural hematoma, pneumocephale.” The prosecution filed a felony information. Here’s how it pleaded assault in the second degree:   On or about August 25, 2019, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, JOHN KEONI JARDINE . . . did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause substantial bodily injury to Paul Costa, and/or did intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to Paul Costa with a dangerous instrument, thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 707-711(1)(a) and/or Section 707-711(1)(d) of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes.   Jardine moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the prosecution failed to include the statutory definition of the term “substantial bodily injury.” The circuit court—with th...

Colloquies for Those with Limited English Proficiency Require Something More than Rote Questioning to be Valid

State v. Ernes (HSC June 17, 2020) Background. Erik Ernes was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer in the second degree. He appeared in the district court with a Chuukese interpreter to assist him. The district court with the Hon. Judge Lono Lee presiding, addressed Ernes:           Court:         Okay, good morning, Mr. Ernes.           Ernes:         (In English) Good morning.           Court:         I just received a waiver of jury trial                             form. Did you sign it?           Ernes:         (Thro...

Preserving an Issue may Require Motions in Limine and an Objection at Trial

State v. Engelby (HSC June 12, 2020) Background. Jason Engelby charged with two counts of sexual assault in the first degree on December 1, 2011 and December 4, 2012. The complainant was the daughter of a close friend. The parties filed motions in limine prior to trial to determine if the proffered expert, Dr. Alexander Bivens, was qualified to testify as an expert and, if qualified, the scope of his expert testimony. The prosecution wanted him qualified as an expert “on the dynamics of child sexual assault” and claimed that Dr. Bivens would testify about those dynamics and patterns of behavior exhibited by child victims, including delayed reporting and tunnel memory. Engelby objected on the grounds that the proffered testimony was irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, improperly bolstered the prosecution witnesses, usurped the jury’s function, and improperly profiled Engelby as a child molester. Engelby further argued that expert testimony was unnecessary to explain the phenomenon of “de...

A Meditation on Rule 403 and Rejecting the "Impact Testimony" Theory

State v. Gallagher (HSC May 15, 2020) Background. John Gallagher went to trial on a single count of criminal property damage in the 2d degree. He was accused of damaging a vehicle parked in the drive way of the complainant's home. The theory at trial was that he did not intent or know that the damage he caused to the vehicle was in excess of $1,500. Before trial, Gallagher filed a motion in limine seeking the exclusion of evidence that prior to the day of the alleged damage, the complainants had been stalked, harassed, and terrorized by Gallagher. They filed restraining orders, installed cameras, and a security surveillance system around the house. The prosecution maintained that the evidence was admissible pursuant to HRE Rule 404(b) and were not used to show Gallagher’s propensity to commit the crime. The motion in limine was denied. In her opening statement, the prosecutor said the complainants called the police on Gallagher several times in the months leading up to the...

Waiving your Rights has Never been this Tough

State v. Krstoth (HSC August 9, 2016) Background. Takson Krstoth pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. At the change-of-plea hearing, Krstoth appeared with a Chuukese interpreter. A colloquy between Krstoth and the court revealed that Krstoth was 22 years old with a tenth-grade education. He did not read or write in the English language. The circuit court accepted the plea and set the case for sentencing. Before sentencing, the court received a letter written by someone else and purportedly signed by Krstoth. The letter stated that he entered the plea agreement because he had been frightened terribly by his defense counsel. After the letter, Krstoth’s counsel moved to withdraw as counsel and a new lawyer was appointed. Krstoth then filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on the grounds that the interpreter was not informing Krstoth of what was being said and was simply telling him to “say yes” and “say no.” Krstoth also argued that he did not authorize his initial lawy...

Tightening the Reins on Expert Testimony

State v. Kony (HSC May 4, 2016) Background. Last Kony as indicted with various charges of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the third degree. The complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. The CW was living in the home and was fifteen years old. Kony was the boyfriend of the CW’s half-sister and father of two children in the home. Before trial, Kony moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Alexander Jay Bivens on the grounds that his testimony would be irrelevant and, if relevant, its probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice in violation of HRE Rule 403. At the hearing on the motion, the prosecution responded that Dr. Bivens’ testimony was needed to explain to the jury why the CW’s reporting of the alleged assaults was delayed. The prosecution asserted that it would limit Dr. Bivens to the factors that would hypothetically lead to delayed reporting. The circuit court denied the motion and would all...

Yes, Forgery Includes Using Counterfeit Cash

State v. Eberly (ICA March 31, 2014) Background. Bardwell Eberly, Antony Moore, and Chrisitna Whitley were originally charged with forgery in the first degree. HRS § 708-853. Specifically, they were charged with “uttering” a forged instrument “purported to be United States Currency.” Eberly pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of forgery in the third degree. Before sentencing, however, the HSC in an unrelated case affirmed Eberly’s conviction and sentence to prison. The sentence was stayed pending appeal this entire time. Now that it had come down, the trial court in this case told Eberly that he could not be sentenced to probation. Eberly moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He was sentenced to a year in jail. Eberly appealed. The Issue and the two big Procedural Problems. Eberly presented a straight-forward issue on appeal: the forgery statutes plainly and unambiguously do not include counterfeiting U.S. currency. The problem in getting to the issue is that it was never raised b...