Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Appellant Jenaro Torres of murder in the second degree and found that Appellant possessed, used, or threatened the use of a revolver during the commission of a murder. Appellant had previously pled no contest in federal court to charges stemming from the same incident. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial based on its conclusion that the court erred in admitting evidence obtained by federal officers. The Supreme Court (1) held that where the State seeks to prosecute a defendant in a Hawaii state court and seeks to admit evidence obtained by federal law enforcement officers, the court must give due consideration to the Hawaii Constitution and applicable case law when assessing whether such evidence is admissible against the defendant; (2) corrected the opinion of the ICA insofar as it concluded that federal law alone was to be considered in ruling on the evidence obtained by federal officers and failed to additionally consider whether the evidence also comported with the Hawaii Constitution and applicable case law; and (3) affirmed the opinion of the ICA in all other respects.

Respondent John Veikoso was charged with an eight-count indictment relating to the sexual assault of two complaining witnesses on two separate occasions. The jury found Respondent guilty on all eight counts. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals vacated the trial court's judgment of conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a doctor who examined the second complaining witness regarding alleged threats made by Respondent against the witness and that such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate appeallate court and reinstated and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the error in admitting such testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant Robert Tominiko was near an intersection with a gathering of people who were drinking beer and soda. A police officer arrived but did not see Tominiko drinking beer. The officer asked to see Tominiko's identification, but Tominiko walked to his car and got in. When the officer asked Tominiko to exit his vehicle, Tominiko drove away. The officer chased Tominiko and, while Tominiko was stopped by traffic, the officer approached Tominiko's vehicle and noticed beer bottles in his car. Tominiko was later convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). Tominiko appealed, contending that the OVUII charge was insufficient and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals and district court, holding (1) the charge was not insufficient because, when reading the charge as a whole, it could be reasonably construed to charge a crime; and (2) Tominiko was subjected to an illegal seizure, and the evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed.

After a jury trial, the circuit court found Timothy Walsh guilty of assault in the second decree. The intermediate court of appeals vacated the judgment of the circuit court, finding that the prosecutor's statements during his closing argument implied that Walsh tailored his testimony because he exercised his right to be present during jury voir dire and other witnesses' testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the criminal trial of a defendant, the prosecution's statements that a testifying defendant is less credible because he had been present during the trial, heard the testimony of other witnesses, and heard voir dire, constitute prohibited generic tailoring arguments; (2) prohibited generic tailoring arguments are reviewable as plain error; (3) standard jury instructions regarding witness testimony and counsel's arguments do not cure such improper arguments; (4) accordingly, whenever a defendant testifies, the jury must be instructed that the defendant has a right to be present during trial; and (5) in this case, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded.