Posts

Showing posts with the label trial

Anytime the State wants to use the defendant's statements against them, there has to be a pretrial voluntariness hearing.

  State v. Tolentino (HSC June 30, 2026). Henry Tolentino was pulled over for speeding. He was ordered out of the car. An officer drew his gun and ordered him to get on the ground. Tolentino ran away. An officer chased him, caught up to him, and there was a struggle. The officer said that Tolentino kicked and punched him. And then the officer punched Tolentino three but “no more than five” times in the face. As they were fighting a second officer ran into them and all three fell to the ground. They cuffed Tolentino and as they were raising him to his feet he said, “I’m sorry. I was just trying to get a Zip Pac .” The prosecution charged Tolentino with assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree. Before trial, Tolentino moved as a motion in limine to exclude his statement about the Zip Pac. The defense did not move to suppress and the prosecution did not ask for a voluntariness hearing. The motion in limine was denied. The defense asked for an evidentiary hearing, whi...

An unrecorded police interrogation—inside and outside the station—violates Due Process in Hawaii.

  State v. Zuffante (HSC September 17, 2025). Charles Zuffante and his girlfriend were pulled over by the police for driving around Kona with expired registration. The car was registered to his girlfriend. The officers saw a glass pipe in the center cupholder and arrested them. The police searched Zuffante and found 3.5 grams of methamphetamine in his pocket. The event was recorded on their body worn cameras (BWC). Then they got a warrant to search the car and seized 130 grams of methamphetamine found in a handbag, a black and white polka dot coin purse, a sunglasses case, and a fanny pack.   The next day, a detective interrogated Zuffante after Zuffante waived his right to remain silent and his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The interrogation occurred in the Kona station interrogation room. The detective later claimed that the audio and video recording devices in the room were inoperable. Zuffante assumed it was working because “they have a ca...

Police have to let you know that you’re free to go (so long as you actually are free to go).

  State v. Spies (HSC September 16, 2025). Jonathan Spies was stopped by the police as he stepped out of his truck in the Foodland parking lot in Waimea on the Big Island. Sierra Valderrama was in the passenger seat. The officer had him sit in the back of his pickup while backup showed up. When they did, they told Spies they had a warrant to search his person —and nothing else. They did not have a warrant to search the vehicle.   They executed the warrant and had Valderrama get out of the truck. The police found nothing on Spies. Officer Justin Gaspar asked Spies if he could search his truck. Spies did not respond with a “yes” or “no” answer. He said something to the effect of “it’s all in there” or “everything that you guys are looking for is in there.” Officer Gaspar asked him  to clarify what he meant and Spies said that it was in his wallet. Spies did not consent to a search of the truck. The police held him for another three minutes after executing the warrant. T...

The use of deadly force must be necessary—not immediately necessary.

  State v. Reis (ICA February 27, 2025) Background. Brandon Reis was on trial for attempted murder in the second degree. At trial, he argued he acted in self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury about the use of lethal force in self-defense by tracking the pattern jury instruction:   The use of deadly force upon or toward another person is justified if the defendant reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against death or serious bodily injury or kidnapping. The reasonableness of the defendants’ belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as the defendant reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used.   The jury found Reis guilty as charged. He appealed.   The jury was incorrectly instructed that t...

From leading questions to closing argument: a steady drip of prosecutorial misconduct

  State v. Cardona (HSC September 20, 2024) Background. Oscar Cardona was indicted with murder in the second degree. Before trial, he notified the court and the prosecution that he suffers from an eye disease called myopic degeneration, has extremely blurred vision, and wears glasses. At the time of the incident, his glasses were damaged and had been he could not see. The circuit court—with the Honorable Judge Kevin Morikone presiding—ruled that Cardona could present the evidence at trial.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that one summer’s night in Waikiki, Elijah Horn was talking to some women when Elian Delacerda and Osvaldo Castaneda-Pena approached them. The men got vulgar and aggressive. Horn got scared and called Cardona to come help because he was like a father figure to him. Cardona showed up and pulled out a gold knife. Cardona and Horn told Delacerda and Castaneda-Pena to leave.   Delacerda and Castaneda-Pena attacked Horn. Horn hit Cast...

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 ...