IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
|
|
- Anthony Simpson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC JAN :01 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN EDUWENSUYI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. SCWC CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP ; CASE NO. 1DTA ) JANUARY 18, 2018 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J. The appeal in this case arises from a challenge by Benjamin Eduwensuyi to the validity of his waiver of the right to testify at trial and the propriety of the conviction that ensued. We hold that the record does not support a conclusion that Eduwensuyi s waiver of the right to testify was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made. Because the
2 error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we vacate the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 1, 2016, Eduwensuyi was charged by complaint in the Honolulu District Court of the First Circuit (district court) with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 291E-61(a)(1). 1 A bench trial took place on July 11, Prior to the presentation of evidence, the district court advised Eduwensuyi as follows: THE COURT:... I have to advise you that you have a right to testify if you choose to do so. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you also have a right not to testify. That s up to you. I ll question you further toward the end of the trial as to whether or not you want to waive either of these rights, to make sure that you ve been fully informed of your rights and to make sure that any decision you make is your decision, it s voluntary, okay. So your attorney can give you advice about whether or not you should or should not testify, but ultimately, it s your decision. Do you understand that? proceedings. 1 HRS 291E-61(a)(1) (Supp. 2015) provides as follows: A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle: (1) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair the person s normal mental faculties or ability to care for the person and guard against casualty[.] 2 The Honorable Richard J. Diehl presided over the trial 2
3 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. then. THE COURT: Okay, very well. We can readily proceed The State presented the testimony of one witness, Officer Jessie Takushi of the Honolulu Police Department. Officer Takushi testified that at approximately 4:37 a.m. on January 17, 2016, he stopped a vehicle occupied by Eduwensuyi for multiple traffic infractions, including crossing a double solid yellow line. According to Officer Takushi, as he was approaching Eduwensuyi s vehicle, he saw Eduwensuyi climbing from the driver s seat into the passenger s seat. When Officer Takushi reached the vehicle, he noticed that there was a different male in the driver s seat and that Eduwensuyi was kind of laying down on the passenger s side with his feet still in the driver s seat area. Officer Takushi testified that he asked Eduwensuyi for his driver s license, registration, and insurance, which Eduwensuyi provided. Officer Takushi stated that Eduwensuyi s eyes were red and watery, his speech was slurred, and an odor of alcohol emanated from inside the vehicle. At Officer Takushi s request, Eduwensuyi agreed to participate in the standardized field sobriety test. According to Officer Takushi, Eduwensuyi was unsteady on his feet, he swayed while standing, and he 3
4 dragged his feet when walking. Officer Takushi acknowledged that his report did not mention that Eduwensuyi was swaying while standing. Following Officer Takushi s testimony, the State rested. The defense then informed the district court that it would not be presenting evidence, and the following exchange occurred: THE COURT:... sir, you do have a right to testify if you choose to do so, as I said at the beginning of the trial. And if you testify, though, the prosecutor can cross-examine you and ask you questions. If you decide not to testify, the court -- I can t hold it against you, nor would I, that you are not going to testify. Okay, doesn t mean anything one way or the other to the court. Do you understand these rights? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And have you consulted with your attorney about whether or not you wish to testify? THE DEFENDANT: I like to take a second to do so right now, sir. THE COURT: Pardon me? THE DEFENDANT: I d like to take a second right now, Your Honor to do so again. THE COURT: -- very well. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You have consulted with your attorney? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And do you wish to testify? THE DEFENDANT: No, I m not -- THE COURT: Okay. THE DEFENDANT: -- Your Honor. 4
5 THE COURT: Okay, the court finds that the defendant has been advised of his rights, has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to testify or not to testify..... Eduwensuyi then moved for judgment of acquittal, which motion the court denied. The district court found Eduwensuyi guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of HRS 291E-61(a)(1) and imposed sentence. 3 Eduwensuyi appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) from the district court s judgment entered on July 11, II. ICA PROCEEDINGS In his opening brief, Eduwensuyi argued that under Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai i 226, 236, 900 P.2d 1293, 1303 (1995), the district court was required to engage him in a colloquy prior to accepting his waiver of the right to testify to ensure he was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently relinquishing his rights. Eduwensuyi contended that the court s Tachibana colloquy was incomplete and defective because the court did not advise him that he had a right not to testify and that if he wanted to testify no one could prevent him from doing 3 The district court sentenced Eduwensuyi to the following: pay a fine and fees totaling $562; submit to a substance abuse assessment and obtain recommended treatment; and participate in a 14-hour substance abuse rehabilitation program. The district court further ordered that Eduwensuyi s license be revoked for a period of one year. 5
6 so. Because the colloquy was defective, Eduwensuyi maintained, any waiver by him was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In addition, Eduwensuyi contended that the court failed to engage in a true exchange during the colloquy. Eduwensuyi argued that, instead of administering the colloquy in segments and asking Eduwensuyi whether he understood each advisement, the district court simply recited a litany of rights. (Citing State v. Christian, 88 Hawai i 407, 967 P.2d 239 (1998).) Eduwensuyi added that there was nothing in the record to establish that he understood each of his rights or that the court had an objective basis for finding that his waiver of the right to testify was validly made. Eduwensuyi further submitted that the district court s violation of the requirements of Tachibana was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the record offered no hint as to whether his testimony, had he given it, could have established reasonable doubt that he operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Eduwensuyi concluded that, because it is inherently uncertain what he would have testified to at trial, there is a reasonable possibility that the violation of his constitutional right to testify contributed to his conviction. 6
7 In its answering brief, the State first addressed Eduwensuyi s contention that the district court failed to engage in a true exchange during the Tachibana colloquy. The State noted that the court asked Eduwensuyi at the end of both the pretrial advisement and the ultimate colloquy whether he understood his rights and, in both instances, Eduwensuyi responded in the affirmative. The State added that Eduwensuyi was also permitted to consult with defense counsel regarding the waiver. Hence, the State argued that the court s exchange with Eduwensuyi was sufficient to enable the court to ascertain Eduwensuyi s understanding of the court s advisements. Turning to the contents of the pretrial advisement and the ultimate colloquy, the State acknowledged that the district court s pretrial advisement was deficient in that the court did not advise Eduwensuyi that his decision not to testify could not be used against him by the factfinder. The State submitted that, because the pretrial advisement is reviewed for actual prejudice, the district court could have rectified the error by ensuring that Eduwensuyi was fully informed of his rights in the ultimate colloquy. The State conceded, however, that the ultimate colloquy was also deficient in some respects because the district court failed to inform Eduwensuyi of two of the five basic requirements of Tachibana--namely, that if he wanted 7
8 to testify, no one could prevent him from doing so and that he had the right not to testify. The State further acknowledged that the district court s violation of Tachibana may not be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the circumstances in this case and that it is not uncommon for convictions to be vacated as a result of deficient Tachibana colloquies. The State indicated that the situation was unfortunate given that the evidence showed that Eduwensuyi operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and that the district court failed to follow the simple mandates of this court s precedent. The State concluded that it believes the right to testify colloquy was deficient and thus a new trial is warranted. On June 9, 2017, the ICA entered a summary disposition order (SDO). 4 In its SDO, the ICA did not reference that the State had acknowledged in its answering brief that both the district court s pretrial advisement and the ultimate colloquy were deficient because the district court failed to advise Eduwensuyi of basic information required by Tachibana. The ICA also did not mention in its SDO that the State had conceded error in the conviction in this case. 4 The ICA s SDO can be found at State v. Eduwensuyi, 140 Hawai i 7, 395 P.3d 1241 (App. June 9, 2017). 8
9 The ICA determined that, although the district court did not advise Eduwensuyi in the ultimate colloquy that no one could prevent him from testifying if he wanted to do so, the court adequately covered this advisement in the pretrial colloquy by advising him that he had a right to testify or not to testify and that it was ultimately his decision whether to testify. The ICA further found that given the short time between the pretrial advisement and the ultimate colloquy, 5 Eduwensuyi s acknowledgment that he understood his rights, and Eduwensuyi s opportunity to further consult with his counsel prior to waiving the right to testify, the district court satisfied the requirements of Tachibana. The ICA thus concluded that Eduwensuyi validly waived the right to testify and accordingly affirmed the district court s judgment. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The validity of a criminal defendant s waiver of the right to testify is a question of constitutional law reviewed by this court under the right/wrong standard. State v. Gomez- Lobato, 130 Hawai i 465, , 312 P.3d 897, (2013). 5 The bench trial lasted fifty minutes. 9
10 IV. DISCUSSION Hawai i law has historically protected both a defendant s right to testify and right not to testify. State v. Monteil, 134 Hawai i 361, 369, 341 P.3d 567, 575 (2014). The right to testify is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution; parallel provisions contained in article I, sections 5, 10, and 14 of the Hawai i Constitution; and HRS State v. Pomroy, 132 Hawai i 85, 91, 319 P.3d 1093, 1099 (2014). The right not to testify is protected by the United States Constitution s Fifth Amendment guarantee against compelled testimony and the Hawai i Constitution s counterpart provision under article I, section 10. Monteil, 134 Hawai i at 369, 341 P.3d at 575. A key purpose of the Tachibana colloquy is to protect a defendant s right to testify. Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai i 226, 236, 900 P.2d 1293, 1303 (1995). In Tachibana, this court declared as follows: Thus, we hold that in order to protect the right to testify under the Hawaiʻi Constitution, trial courts must advise criminal defendants of their right to testify and must obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right in every case in which the defendant does not testify. Id. (footnotes omitted). Hence, trial courts are charged with the serious and weighty responsibility of ensuring that the waiver of the right to testify is a knowing and intelligent 10
11 decision. Monteil, 134 Hawai i at 371, 341 P.3d at 577 (quoting Tachibana, 79 Hawai i at 233, 900 P.2d at 1300). A defendant s constitutional right to testify is violated when the Tachibana colloquy is inadequate to provide an objective basis for finding the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily relinquished his or her right to testify. State v. Han, 130 Hawai i 83, 91, 306 P.3d 128, 136 (2013). In determining whether a waiver of the right to testify was voluntarily and intelligently made, this court looks to the totality of the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Id. at 89, 306 P.3d at 134. A. The Tachibana Colloquy Was Inadequate In its answering brief to the ICA, the State conceded that the ultimate colloquy was... deficient in some respects because, inter alia, the district court failed to inform [Eduwensuyi]... that if he wants to testify that no one can prevent him from doing so. The State concluded that it believes the right to testify colloquy was deficient and thus a new trial is warranted. Upon a review of the record and applicable law, the State s concession of error was properly made. See Territory v. Kogami, 37 Haw. 174, 175 (Haw. Terr. 1945) (holding that, while a prosecutor s confession of error is entitled to great weight, before a conviction is reversed, it 11
12 is incumbent upon the appellate court to ascertain first that the confession of error is supported by the record and wellfounded in law and to determine that such error is properly preserved and prejudicial ). 1. The district court did not advise Eduwensuyi that no one could prevent him from testifying. Under Tachibana, a defendant must be advised, inter alia, that if he [or she] wants to testify that no one can prevent him [or her] from doing so. 79 Hawaiʻi at 236 n.7, 900 P.2d at 1303 n.7 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Silva, 78 Hawai i 115, , 890 P.2d 702, (App. 1995)). This advisement is critical. See, e.g., Pomroy, 132 Hawaiʻi at 92, 319 P.3d at The Tachibana colloquy was adopted by this court as the procedure that would best protect defendants rights while maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. Tachibana, 79 Hawaiʻi at 234, 900 P.2d at This court recognized that [m]any defendants are unaware that they have a constitutional right to testify which no one, not even their lawyer, may take away from them. Id. (quoting Boyd v. United States, 586 A.2d 670, 677 (D.C. 1991)). In Pomroy, we held that the Tachibana colloquy was defective in part because the court did not fully advise [the defendant] of his rights. 132 Hawaiʻi at 92, 319 P.3d at As this court explained, 12
13 Although the district court advised [the defendant] that he had the right to testify on his behalf and that if he chose to testify, he would be subject to cross-examination by the State, the district court did not advise [the defendant] that he had the right not to testify and that no one can prevent him from testifying. Id. (emphases added). Here, as in Pomroy, the district court failed to advise Eduwensuyi that no one could prevent him from testifying. 6 This error was compounded by the court s failure to inform Eduwensuyi during the ultimate colloquy that the decision regarding testifying was his to make. Given that the advisement that no one can prevent the defendant from testifying is critical and the only Tachibana advisement that emphasizes that the waiver of the right to testify must be voluntary, the court s Tachibana colloquy was deficient. 7 6 The State also properly conceded that the district court did not advise Eduwensuyi during the ultimate colloquy that he had a right not to testify. See Kogami, 37 Haw. at 175. In Pomroy, this court held that the district court did not advise [the defendant] that he had the right not to testify; the district court merely stated, If you choose not to testify, I cannot hold that against you. 132 Hawai i at 92, 319 P.3d at Likewise, the district court here advised Eduwensuyi, If you decide not to testify, the court -- I can t hold it against you. Such an advisement is similarly flawed, since telling a defendant [i]f you decide not to testify is not equivalent to informing the defendant of the constitutional right not to testify. 7 The ICA appears to have similarly determined that the ultimate colloquy was deficient because it acknowledged that the district court neglected to advise Eduwensuyi that no one can prevent him from testifying. The ICA instead relied on, inter alia, the pretrial advisement to conclude that Eduwensuyi validly waived the right to testify. 13
14 2. The pretrial advisement did not cure the deficiency of the ultimate colloquy. The ICA relied on the pretrial advisement to support its conclusion that the ultimate colloquy was adequate. In its answering brief, the State conceded that the pretrial advisement was deficient because the district court did not advise Eduwensuyi that if he decided not to testify, the court as the factfinder would not use that decision against him. The State s concession on this point was correct. See Kogami, 37 Haw. at 175. In State v. Lewis, this court mandated that trial courts administer a pretrial advisement to defendants: the trial courts prior to the start of trial, [shall] (1) inform the defendant of his or her personal right to testify or not to testify and (2) alert the defendant that, if he or she has not testified by the end of the trial, the court will briefly question him or her to ensure that the decision not to testify is the defendant s own decision. 94 Hawai i 292, 297, 12 P.3d 1233, 1238 (2000) (alteration in original) (quoting Tachibana, 79 Hawaiʻi at 237 n.9, 900 P.2d at 1304 n.9). To more fully protect the right not to testify, the court in Monteil added a third requirement to the pretrial advisement. 134 Hawai i at 373, 341 P.3d at 579. There, we held that trial courts must also advise defendants during the pretrial advisement that their exercise of the right not to testify may not be used by the factfinder to decide the case. Id. The district court in this case was thus required to inform 14
15 Eduwensuyi during the pretrial advisement that if he decided not to testify, that decision would not be used against him. Id. The court failed to advise Eduwensuyi accordingly, and therefore the pretrial advisement was deficient. The district court also did not inform Eduwensuyi during the pretrial advisement that no one could prevent him from testifying. Thus, the pretrial advisement could not cure the deficiency of the ultimate colloquy, which likewise omitted this information. The ICA nevertheless determined that, while the district court neglected to advise Eduwensuyi during the ultimate colloquy that no one could prevent him from testifying, the court did inform Eduwensuyi during the pretrial advisement that the decision whether to testify was ultimately his. However, an advisement that the decision whether to testify or not to testify is ultimately the defendant s is not equivalent under our precedent to an advisement that no one can prevent the defendant from testifying. In Pomroy, the district court advised the defendant during the ultimate colloquy, inter alia, that the decision to testify is yours and yours alone. 132 Hawai i at 92, 319 P.3d at This court determined that the ultimate colloquy was defective in part because the district court did not advise Pomroy that no one could prevent him from testifying. Id. 15
16 Similarly, the district court here informed Eduwensuyi during the pretrial advisement that his counsel may advise him about whether or not to testify but that the decision regarding testifying was ultimately his. The court failed, however, to inform Eduwensuyi during the ultimate colloquy that no one could prevent him from testifying. Thus, the district court incompletely followed Tachibana s directive. Pomroy, 132 Hawai i at 92, 319 P.3d at The ICA s reasons for concluding that the district court satisfied the requirements of Tachibana are flawed. In concluding that the district court satisfied the requirements of Tachibana, the ICA relied upon the fact that only a short time elapsed between the district court s pretrial advisement and the ultimate colloquy. However, as discussed supra, the pretrial advisement did not include the advisory that was absent from the ultimate colloquy--that no one could prevent Eduwensuyi from testifying if he wanted to do so. Additionally, a general assumption that a trial of short duration means that the defendant will remember and carefully consider what was previously stated in a pretrial advisement is not a fact that can be judicially noticed. Indeed, the opposite may be true. A trial, especially the commencement of the trial, is an event where a defendant may be 16
17 anxious or nervous and not listening effectively. 8 In addition, it is questionable that a defendant would extrapolate from what the judge actually said--it s your decision to testify or not to testify--to mean something in addition--that no one can prevent you from testifying. Further, the ICA s assumption based on the brevity of the trial builds upon a premise that the defendant is able to correctly recall a pretrial advisory at the end of trial. This assumption treats all defendants alike in terms of their ability to understand and recall the initial advisory despite differences, for example, in education, proficiency in understanding, and courtroom experience. It also does not account for what comes in between the pretrial advisement and the conclusion of trial: the evidence adduced at trial that may affect the defendant s ability at the time of the ultimate colloquy to recall or focus upon a prior advisory. Finally, the pretrial advisement notifies the defendant of the right to testify or not to testify but states that if the defendant has 8 A criminal proceeding is, at best, an anxious event for a defendant and his family. Sara K. Sorenson, Treating Defendants as Individuals, 78 N.D. L. Rev. 259, 260 (2002). Courts have recognized in other contexts that events associated with a criminal accusation can cause a defendant to suffer from anxiety. See, e.g., United States v. Henson, 945 F.2d 430, 438 (1st Cir. 1991) ( [C]onsiderable anxiety normally attends the initiation and pendency of criminal charges[.] ); State v. Wasson, 76 Hawai i 415, 422, 879 P.2d 520, 527 (1994) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 533 (1972)) (recognizing that the defendant, like most criminal defendants, suffered from anxious moments awaiting trial); Commonwealth v. Leate, 367 Mass. 689, 694 (1975) (indicating that there is an assortment of pressures inherent in the situation where a defendant pleads guilty). 17
18 not testified by the end of trial, the court will question the defendant later regarding the decision not to testify. It is significant that the defendant is told that the pretrial advisement is preliminary in nature and that the subject matter will be addressed fully at a later point if the defendant chooses not to testify. 9 Thus, to assume, as the ICA did, that a pretrial advisement can serve as a substitute for deficiencies in the ultimate colloquy based on the length of the trial is inherently problematic. Instead, a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver must be borne out by evaluating the facts and circumstances that are evidenced as to the particular defendant, Han, 130 Hawai i at 89, 306 P.3d at 134, and not based upon general assumptions of what a defendant would recall from a pretrial advisement--as deduced from the length of a trial Further, the purpose of the pretrial advisement is not to make up for the inadequacies of the ultimate colloquy. Rather, the pretrial advisement was implemented because it would have the beneficial effect of limiting any post-conviction claim that a defendant testified in ignorance of his or her right not to testify, State v. Lewis, 94 Hawai i 292, 297, 12 P.3d 1233, 1238 (2000), and would lessen the risk that the ultimate colloquy would inadvertently affect the defendant s right not to testify, Tachibana, 79 Hawai i at 237 n.9, 900 P.2d at 1304 n Our analysis is not meant to indicate that a pretrial colloquy cannot be considered as part of the totality of facts and circumstances in an evaluation of whether a particular defendant s waiver was knowing and voluntary. 18
19 The ICA also relied on Eduwensuyi s acknowledgment of his understanding of his rights at the conclusion of the colloquy. However, as discussed, the ultimate colloquy was deficient in that the court did not advise Eduwensuyi that no one could prevent him from testifying. A defendant s acknowledgment of an understanding of an incomplete colloquy cannot serve as a basis for a valid waiver of the right to testify. Rather, a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver is demonstrated by a showing that the defendant was fully and accurately informed in accordance with the requirements of Tachibana and that the defendant acknowledged an understanding of the advisements given. See Monteil, 134 Hawai i at 371, 341 P.3d at 577 ( [A] decision by a defendant not to testify should be based upon a defendant s awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of such a decision. (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970))). Finally, as support for its conclusion that there was a valid waiver in this case, the ICA reasoned that Eduwensuyi was afforded the opportunity to--and he actually did--consult with defense counsel during the ultimate colloquy. However, neither the basis of Eduwensuyi s request to consult with counsel during the ultimate colloquy nor the nature of their conversation is known. After Eduwensuyi consulted with his 19
20 counsel, the district court did not ask Eduwensuyi whether he had any questions regarding his rights to testify and not to testify, nor did the court ask whether speaking with counsel answered any questions that he might have had regarding those rights. Instead, the court simply asked Eduwensuyi whether he wished to testify. And based on the negative response from Eduwensuyi, the court found a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right. Thus, there is nothing in the record that indicates that Eduwensuyi s discussion with counsel enhanced his understanding of his constitutional rights, much less rectified the error in the court s colloquy. In addition, it is settled law that the duty to ensure that a defendant s waiver of the right to testify is validly made is one that is imparted to a court. A court has a serious and weighty responsibility to determine whether a waiver of the right to testify is a knowing and intelligent decision. Monteil, 134 Hawai i at 371, 341 P.3d at 577 (quoting Tachibana, 79 Hawai i at 233, 900 P.2d at 1300). Thus, a court may not rely upon an off-the-record discussion between counsel and a defendant to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right, and the ICA erred in doing so. Cf. State v. Gomez- Lobato, 130 Hawai i 465, , 312 P.3d 897, (2013) (finding waiver of jury trial deficient in part because court 20
21 should have inquired as to defendant s understanding of jury trial waiver form that was interpreted to him out of court). Based on the foregoing, the ICA s reasons for concluding that the district court satisfied the requirements of Tachibana are flawed and cannot support a finding that Eduwensuyi validly waived the right to testify. B. The Court s Error Was Not Harmless Beyond A Reasonable Doubt The State acknowledged in its answering brief that the district court s violation of Tachibana in this case may not be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the circumstances, concluding that it believes the right to testify colloquy was deficient and thus a new trial is warranted. We find that the State s concession on this point was proper. See Kogami, 37 Haw. at 175. Once a violation of the constitutional right to testify is established, the conviction must be vacated unless the State can prove that the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Tachibana, 79 Hawaiʻi at 240, 900 P.2d at 1307 (citations omitted). The relevant question under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard is whether there is a reasonable possibility that error might have contributed to [the] conviction. Han, 130 Hawai i at 93, 306 P.3d at 138 (quoting State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawai i 432, 450, 279 P.3d 1237, 1255 (2012)). 21
22 Had Eduwensuyi testified, he may have been able to contest the State s case and shed light on whether he operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of HRS 291E-61(a)(1). On this record, it is not knowable whether Eduwensuyi s testimony would have had any effect on the outcome of his case. Pomroy, 132 Hawai i at 94, 319 P.3d at Hence, it is impossible to conclude that violating Eduwensuyi s right to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Tachibana, 79 Hawai i at 240, 900 P.2d at 1307; State v. Silva, 78 Hawai i 115, 126, 890 P.2d 702, 713 (App. 1995); Pomroy, 132 Hawai i at 94, 319 P.3d at Therefore, Eduwensuyi s conviction must be vacated. C. The ICA Failed To Give Any Deference To The State s Concessions Of Error As noted supra, the State conceded in its answering brief that the pretrial advisement was deficient because the district court did not advise Eduwensuyi that his decision not to testify could not be used by the factfinder against him. The State also conceded that the ultimate colloquy was deficient because the district court failed to inform [Eduwensuyi] of 2 of the 5 basic requirements of Tachibana, namely that if he 11 Eduwensuyi also argues that the court did not engage in a true colloquy. In light of the disposition in this case, we do not address this contention. 22
23 wants to testify that no one can prevent him from doing so and that he has the right not to testify. The State further acknowledged that the district court s violation of Tachibana may not be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the circumstances in this case and concluded that it believes the right to testify colloquy was deficient and thus a new trial is warranted. A prosecutor s confession, although not binding on an appellate court, is entitled to great weight. Territory v. Kogami, 37 Haw. 174, 175 (Haw. Terr. 1945); see also State v. Wasson, 76 Hawai i 415, 418, 879 P.2d 520, 523 (1994) (considering the State s concession and concluding that the State properly conceded error); State v. Solomon, 107 Hawai i 117, , 111 P.3d 12, (2005) (recognizing the prosecutor s confession of error and vacating the defendant s conviction and remanding the case for a new change of plea hearing). Thus, the ICA was required to consider the State s concessions of error set forth in its answering brief. However, nothing in the ICA s decision indicates that the ICA gave due consideration to the State s concessions in its evaluation of the issues presented in this case. 12 See Kogami, 37 Haw. at 175; 12 As stated, in Kogami, this court indicated that a prosecutor s confession of error is entitled to great weight. 37 Haw. at 175. We note 23 (continued...)
24 Wasson, 76 Hawai i at 418, 879 P.2d at 523; Solomon, 107 Hawai i at 127, 111 P.3d at 22. As discussed, the State s concessions are supported both by the record in this case and applicable legal principles. Under our well-settled law, while the ICA was not bound by the State s concessions, the ICA was required to give due consideration to them. Nonetheless, in light of the disposition reached in this case, we do not consider the effect of the ICA s failure to give the requisite consideration to the State s concessions. V. CONCLUSION The Tachibana colloquy was inadequate in that the district court did not advise Eduwensuyi during the ultimate colloquy that no one could prevent him from testifying. This error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the ICA s Judgment on Appeal and the district court s judgment (... continued) that the level of deference that would be accorded to a concession would depend on the issue presented. For example, in Kogami, we found that a concession relating to the insufficiency of the evidence as to the charged violation of a statute was well-founded. Id. However, if the confession of error relates to an interpretation of a law, no deference need be given. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 87 (1953) ( This Court, of course, is not bound to accept the Government s concession that the courts below erred on a question of law. ). Given the manifest deficiency of the Tachibana colloquy in this case and because the ICA entirely failed to acknowledge the State s concessions on appeal, we need not address the level of deference that the ICA should have accorded to the State s confessions of error relating to the district court s noncompliance with the Tachibana requirements. 24
25 are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. James S. Tabe for petitioner Loren J. Thomas for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 25
NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
NO. CAAP-15-0000449 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTINA DOO, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-15-0000450 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LANAKILA NILES, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000402 16-MAY-2018 09:41 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RACHEL VIAMOANA UI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-17-0000352 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAYLOR D. DYKAS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o. vs. LUIS GOMEZ-LOBATO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. SCWC
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000338 30-OCT-2013 08:12 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LUIS GOMEZ-LOBATO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSCWC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. vs. STANLEY S.L. KONG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000393 13-JUN-2013 02:57 PM SCWC-11-0000393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STANLEY S.L. KONG,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
NO. CAAP-14-0001353 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I TAEKYU U, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee, APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-16-0000531 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTINE KIM, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000030 15-AUG-2017 08:09 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTHONY R. VILLENA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationState v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82
State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82 CRIMINAL LAW - MARYLAND RULE 4-215 - The harmless error doctrine does not apply to violations of Maryland Rule 4-215(a)(3). Consequently, a trial court s failure
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---ooo--- ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000151 13-NOV-2014 07:51 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---ooo--- ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000402 16-MAY-2018 09:37 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RACHEL VIAMOANA UI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 29669 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL A. REEVES, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationNOS and IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NOS. 29314 and 29315 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WAYNE SHAMBLIN, aka STEVEN J. SOPER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plantiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000052 23-DEC-2014 09:56 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plantiff-Appellee, vs. JACQUES RAYMOND MONTEIL,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,099 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JERRY SELLERS, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,099 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JERRY SELLERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0001121 15-MAY-2017 08:15 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAYMOND S. DAVIS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, Petty and Senior Judge Willis Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No. 2781-04-1 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-11-0000430 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I TODD THURSTON DICKIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000758 06-FEB-2014 09:26 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL W. BASHAM, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000711 30-JUN-2016 09:13 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- ROBERT E. WIESENBERG, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I;
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
NO. CAAP-16-0000109 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALVIN K. KANOA, JR., Defendant-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,522 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MARTIN MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,522 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MARTIN MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Haskell District
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November On writ of certiorari to review order entered 29 May 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 29921 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALAN KALAI FILOTEO, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-928 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MARK DAIGLE ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 64157 HONORABLE KRISTIAN
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0002509 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIT WAI YU, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI» I
NO. CAAP-11-0000482 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI» I STATE OF HAWAI» I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEVIN MEDEIROS, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-15-0000294 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY REZENTES, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- SCWC CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001160 20-SEP-2016 07:56 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- SCWC-14-0001160 CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-12-0001025 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL A. BAYUDAN, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied May 8, 1990 COUNSEL
STATE V. CASTILLO, 1990-NMCA-043, 110 N.M. 54, 791 P.2d 808 (Ct. App. 1990) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant Nos. 11074, 11119 Consolidated COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2005 v No. 249780 Oakland Circuit Court TANYA LEE MARKOS, LC No. 2001-178820-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More information2018 CO 89. No. 16SC515, People v. Janis Right to Be Present Waiver Formal Advisements.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DREW CLEMENTE, Defendant-Appellee. CAAP-11-0000027 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- ERWIN E. FAGARAGAN, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SCWC
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000592 14-FEB-2014 02:30 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- ERWIN E. FAGARAGAN, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI I,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
NO. CAAP-17-0000148 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAULO I. NOGA, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationPost Conviction Proceedings - Waiver - When a petitioner fails to file an Application for Leave to Appeal following an Alford plea, his right to
Post Conviction Proceedings - Waiver - When a petitioner fails to file an Application for Leave to Appeal following an Alford plea, his right to raise the issue in a Petition for Post Conviction Relief
More informationV No Macomb Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 31, 2017 V No. 331210 Macomb Circuit Court DAVID JACK RUSSO, LC No. 2015-000513-FH
More informationAdkins, Moylan,* Thieme,* JJ.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0201 September Term, 1999 ON REMAND ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STATE OF MARYLAND v. DOUG HICKS Adkins, Moylan,* Thieme,* JJ. Opinion by Adkins,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,740 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,740 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SCOTT NELSON ETEEYAN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Jackson
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-11-0000347 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIE PHOMPHITHACK, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIn the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 93. September Term, 2006
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 93 September Term, 2006 FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLORZANO a/k/a FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLARZANO v. STATE OF
More informationNO. CAAP A ND CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. CAAP
NO. CAAP-15-0000522 A ND CAAP-15-0000523 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. CAAP-15-0000522 STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK TAKEMOTO, Defendant-Appellant
More informationANTOINE LAMONT THOMAS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices ANTOINE LAMONT THOMAS OPINION BY v. Record No. 000408 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationNO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE CORDER, Defendant-Appellant
NO. 28877 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE CORDER, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-CRIMINAL
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-15-0000547 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISAAC JEROME GAUB, Defendant-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406 Filed: 1 June 2004 1. Motor Vehicles--driving while impaired--sufficiency of evidence There was sufficient evidence of driving
More informationMARK SILVER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 39238)
*********************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,
[Cite as State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BARKER, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130.] Criminal law Crim.R. 11
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED March 6, Appeal No. 2016AP2258-CR DISTRICT III STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 6, 2018 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Lower Case No.: 2012-TR A-E
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GORDON H. GROLAND, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000092-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-TR-008295-A-E v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---ooo---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001134 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---ooo--- U.S. BANK N.A. IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 114, ,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 114,186 114,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD DAVIS, No. 21, 2002 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, v. in and for New Castle County STATE OF DELAWARE,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0006008 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IKAIKA AHINA, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationAttorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their
Counsel s Obligation to Advise a Defendant on the Right to Testify By: Mark M. Baker 1 Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense
More informationDISSECTING A GUILTY PLEA HEARING ON APPEAL
Part I: The Plea Hearing I. Validity DISSECTING A GUILTY PLEA HEARING ON APPEAL AMELIA L. BIZZARO Henak Law Office, S.C. 316 North Milwaukee Street, Suite 535 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-283-9300 abizzaro@sbcglobal.net
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH SESSION, 1995
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH SESSION, 1995 FILED September 11, 1995 STATE OF TENNESSEE, Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9406-CR-00231 Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellee,
More informationMotion for Rehearing Denied September 5, 1968 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. MILLER, 1968-NMSC-103, 79 N.M. 392, 444 P.2d 577 (S. Ct. 1968) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joseph Alvin MILLER, Defendant-Appellant No. 8488 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1968-NMSC-103,
More informationHEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict
HEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict A jury verdict, where the jury was not polled and the verdict was not hearkened, is not properly recorded and is therefore a nullity.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JORGE CASTILLO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1452 [April 18, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-14-0001047 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES L. BOVEE, Defendant-Appellant, and ADAM J. APILADO, Defendant-Appellee
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28901 31-DEC-2013 09:48 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs. ROBERT J.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JASHUA SHANNON SIDES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 225250
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,513. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, WILLIAM F. SCHAAL, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,513 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM F. SCHAAL, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court reviews a district court's ruling on
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---ooo--- RT IMPORT, INC., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000970 13-APR-2017 07:53 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---ooo--- RT IMPORT, INC., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS TORRES and MILA
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 12, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 12, 2016 MARTRELL HOLLOWAY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 1205320, 1205321,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: February 11, 2014 Docket No. 32,585 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, JOSEPH SALAS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-12-0000195 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES DAVID KALILI, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 DONNELL CANDY STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1280 September Term, 2016 DONNELL CANDY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Zarnoch, Robert A., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2010 v No. 291273 St. Clair Circuit Court MICHAEL ARTHUR JOYE, LC No. 08-001637-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2018 v No. 333572 Wayne Circuit Court ANTHONY DEAN JONES, LC No. 15-005730-01-FC
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2006 v No. 260313 Oakland Circuit Court TRACI BETH JACKSON, LC No. 2004-196540-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information[Whether A Defendant Has A Right To Counsel At An Initial Appearance, Under Maryland Rule
No. 5, September Term, 2000 Antwone Paris McCarter v. State of Maryland [Whether A Defendant Has A Right To Counsel At An Initial Appearance, Under Maryland Rule 4-213(c), At Which Time The Defendant Purported
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2005 v No. 255873 Jackson Circuit Court ALANZO CALES SEALS, LC No. 04-002074-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---ooo---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000865 29-OCT-2018 08:24 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---ooo--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MATTHEW SEAN SASAI,
More informationElectronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC JAN :05 PM
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0002469 05-JAN-2015 05:05 PM NO. SCWC-13-0002469 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIT SUSAN CHIN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAIT, Respondent"Appellee.
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MONICA A. MATULA v. Appellant No. 1297 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fizer, 2002-Ohio-6807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA4 : MARSHA D. FIZER, : DECISION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 17, 2005 v No. 253406 Bay Circuit Court DONZELL GALVIN, LC No. 02-010692-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Submitted: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 24, 2013
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationDecided: February 22, S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 22, 2016 S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. HUNSTEIN, Justice. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the consent of the State,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS vs. : CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY The defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to the following
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE APRIL SESSION, 1995
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE APRIL SESSION, 1995 FILED October 18, 1995 RICKY GENE WILLIAMS, Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9412-CR-00451 Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellant,
More informationFOR PUBLICATION April 24, :05 a.m. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No Jackson Circuit Court. Defendant-Appellee.
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 24, 2018 9:05 a.m. v No. 337003 Jackson Circuit Court GREGORY SCOTT
More informationSCMF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCMF-11-0000315 25-MAY-2011 09:07 AM SCMF-11-0000315 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI' I In the Matter of the Publication and Distribution of the Hawai'i Pattern
More information*************************************** NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
State v. Givens, 353 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2002). The following summary is not part of the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of the opinion may not have
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 GERALD HYMAN, JR. STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0312 September Term, 2014 GERALD HYMAN, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Kehoe, Leahy, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-177
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DARION JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 1446 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS YILVER MORADEL PONCE Judgment Rendered March 25 2011 Appealed from the Twenty
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed March 27, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C.
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-009 / 11-0012 Filed March 27, 2013 EARL JAMARE GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0003754 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I TIMMY HYUN KYU AKAU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-31-2011 USA v. Irvin Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3582 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION
-GR-102-Guilty Plea IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) NO. Criminal Sessions, VS. ) Charge: ) ) Defendant. ) BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PARKER, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-7661
More informationUSA v. Edward McLaughlin
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-25-2016 USA v. Edward McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004 MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 77242 Richard
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Frett, 2012-Ohio-3363.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97538 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEMETRIOUS A. FRETT
More information