State v. Calara., 322 P.3d 931

Background

Calara was convicted of sexual assault in the fourth degree arising from allegedly fondling CW, his adult niece, while she slept.
The circuit court admitted Denault’s testimony that probable cause existed to arrest Calara, over defense objections; this was later appealed as plain error.
Calara sought to introduce evidence of CW’s use of a drug pipe and cross-examination about drug use to attack perception; the court denied a Rule 104 hearing.
The circuit court admitted two January and February 2007 statements by Calara about wanting to 'take' CW to show state of mind/intent under Rule 404(b).
CW’s testimony and other witnesses (Theresa Nishite, Officer Domingo, Detective Denault) formed the trial record; the ICA affirmed the conviction.
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the ICA and circuit court judgments, remanding for a new trial due to the improper probable-cause testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Error in admitting probable-cause testimony	Denault’s opinion testimony invaded jury’s fact-finding about credibility.	Probable-cause testimony explained the police arrest process and did not directly state CW credibility.	Remand for new trial; admission of probable cause testimony was abuse of discretion.
Preclusion of drug-use evidence and 104 hearing	A Rule 104 hearing was needed to determine CW’s drug use and its effect on perception.	Pipe evidence was too remote; 104 hearing would not cure relevance questions.	Circuit court abused by denying 104 hearing; remand for retrial with proper evaluation of drug-use evidence.
Excited utterance ruling	CW’s statement to Theresa Nishite was admissible as an excited utterance.	CW’s statement was not a proper excited utterance and should have been excluded.	Not reaching final ruling due to remand; acknowledged as not necessary to resolve on retrial.
January/February 2007 statements admissibility under Rule 404(b)	Statements showed Calara’s state of mind and CW’s lack of consent; admissible under 404(b).	Statements were improper character evidence and not probative of a permissible fact.	Abuse of discretion to admit; should be excluded on retrial.
Absence of limiting instruction	Limiting instruction was necessary to restrict use of 404(b) evidence.	Limiting instruction could have been provided; no automatic error shown.	Not reached on the current record; remand could require a limiting instruction if 404(b) evidence is admitted.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552 (Haw. 1990) (expert or police credibility testimony impermissibly invades jury's province)
State v. Morris, 72 Haw. 527 (Haw. 1992) (implicit credibility conclusions require reversal)
State v. Ryan, 112 Haw. 136 (Haw. App. 2006) (officers' credibility conclusions impermissibly invaded jury's province)
State v. Baron, 80 Haw. 107 (Haw. 1995) (prosecutor’s testimony implying credibility of complainant unfairly influences jury)
State v. Sabog, 108 Haw. 102 (Haw. App. 2005) (cross-examination on drug use permitted to affect perception when properly framed)