468 P.3d 87
Haw.2020Background
- On Oct. 15, 2016 Lisa Alkire was stopped for erratic driving, arrested for OVUII, and taken to the Kalihi Police Station.
- Defense counsel sent a timely written "request to preserve" (Oct. 20, 2016) asking HPD and the prosecutor to preserve any station surveillance/video.
- Alkire filed motions to compel (1) personnel/impeachment files for the police witnesses and (2) the station video; the district court denied both before trial.
- Trial began Jan. 10, 2017 (patrol officer testified); it was continued several times and concluded in Aug. 2017 with a conviction based on officer observations.
- The ICA summarily affirmed. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the ICA judgment, and remanded with holdings on (a) HRPP Rule 48 commencement, (b) prosecutor discovery duties, and (c) the district court’s denial of the video discovery request and remedies for lost/destroyed evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Alkire) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Tachibana admonishment was sufficient re: right to testify at consolidated suppression/trial | State relied on existing practice; issue resolved by State v. Chang | Alkire argued admonishment was insufficient and consolidation prejudiced her right to testify without use at trial | Court: Issue already resolved by State v. Chang; not further addressed here (Chang prospectively limits consolidation) |
| 2. Whether HRPP Rule 48 was violated when trial "commenced" but was continued for months | Rule 48 was satisfied because trial technically commenced within six months (first witness testified) | Trial must be "meaningfully commenced"—court must commit resources and parties be ready; repeated long continuances defeat Rule 48's purpose | Court: Adopts a "meaningful commencement" standard (following Rhinehart). Because this is a new rule, it is applied prospectively; Alkire’s Rule 48 claim not resolved in her favor. Constitutional speedy-trial claim failed because trial began three months after arrest |
| 3. Whether prosecutor must personally review officers’ personnel files for Brady/Giglio material | Prosecutor had made affirmative, standard inquiries to HPD/HPC and was told no records existed; that satisfied obligations and personal file review was not required here | Defense argued the prosecutor must personally obtain and disclose impeachment material known to police under Kyles/Brady | Court: Under these facts the prosecutor’s diligent, good-faith inquiries met HRPP Rule 16 and Kyles duties; district court did not abuse discretion in denying compelled personal file review |
| 4. Whether the station video was discoverable, and remedy if lost/destroyed | State argued existence/materiality speculative; not clearly within possession or control; evidence of impairment was overwhelming | Alkire argued she timely requested preservation, video likely existed, was material to impeach officers and to present her defense, and loss without preservation mandates remedy (including dismissal) | Court: Video request was reasonable and material; district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to compel. On remand court must determine whether video was preserved; if destroyed and it was critical, dismissal required; otherwise court must fashion remedy. Court also approves permissive adverse-inference instruction in criminal cases where state agents fail to preserve requested material evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor federal speedy-trial balancing test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence to accused)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor has duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for nondisclosure defense)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence can be material to guilt/punishment)
- Rhinehart v. Municipal Court, 677 P.2d 1206 (Cal. 1984) (meaningful commencement: court must commit resources and parties be ready to try the case)
- State v. Chang, [citation="144 Hawai'i 535"] (2019) (right to testify at suppression hearings; limits consolidating suppression and trial)
- State v. Matafeo, 71 Haw. 183, 787 P.2d 671 (1990) (duty of disclosure includes duty of preservation; lost/destroyed material may require dismissal)