State v. Chang, 445 P.3d 116

Background

Chang was charged with OVUII after a traffic stop; Officer Spiker testified about driving violations, odor and signs of intoxication, and poor SFST performance.
Chang moved to suppress post-stop verbal statements and SFST-related evidence; the district court and parties agreed on the record to consolidate the suppression hearing with a bench trial.
During the consolidated proceeding the court initially told Chang that if he testified at the suppression hearing that testimony could be used against him at trial, then later attempted to correct that advice; Chang ultimately declined to testify.
The district court granted suppression of Chang’s verbal statements but admitted officer observations from the SFST, denied a defense motion to dismiss, and found Chang guilty.
The ICA affirmed; this court granted certiorari and majority and concurring opinions addressed (1) whether the court’s advisement invalidated Chang’s waiver to testify at the suppression hearing and (2) whether consolidation of suppression hearings with trial is permissible going forward.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chang knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived right to testify at the suppression hearing when court initially said testimony could be used at trial	The State contended waiver was valid because the court clarified and Chang acknowledged understanding	Chang argued the court’s erroneous initial advisement (that suppression testimony could be used at trial) fatally confused and undermined any valid waiver	Court held waiver was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary; initial misstatements were erroneous and subsequent clarification was inadequate, so conviction vacated
Whether a defendant may testify at a suppression hearing without that testimony being admissible at trial	Not directly disputed by State at supreme-court level; State relied on consolidated procedure	Chang relied on Simmons and related law that suppression-hearing testimony cannot be used at trial absent consent	Court reaffirmed Simmons: testimony at suppression hearing may not be used at trial on guilt without defendant’s consent
Whether HRPP Rule 12(e) and HRS §641-13 permit consolidation of suppression hearing with trial	State (and prior precedent) allowed consolidation by stipulation; ICA relied on those precedents	Chang argued consolidation implicated procedural protections and appeal rights	Majority (Pollack) held prospectively that consolidation is impermissible under HRPP Rule 12(e) and HRS §641-13 and overruled prior cases allowing consolidation; concurrence/dissent disagreed on overruling
Admissibility of SFST and sufficiency of evidence	State argued SFST observations and driving facts provided probable cause and admissible noncustodial evidence	Chang argued custodial nature and failure to advise Miranda/Tsujimura required suppression of SFST evidence	ICA and dissenting portions found SFST observations admissible; majority did not disturb the evidentiary ruling as dispositive issue was waiver/consolidation

Key Cases Cited

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (testimony at suppression hearing cannot later be used against defendant at trial on issue of guilt absent objection)
Tachibana v. State, [citation="79 Hawai'i 226, 900 P.2d 1293"] (1995) (trial courts must engage defendants in colloquy about right to testify and obtain on-record waiver)
State v. Doyle, 64 Haw. 229, 638 P.2d 332 (1981) (earlier precedent permitting consolidation of suppression hearing and trial with parties’ on-record agreement)
State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44, 609 P.2d 131 (1980) (earlier case treating stipulation to consolidate as not waiving State’s appeal right)
State v. Thomas, 72 Haw. 48, 805 P.2d 1212 (1991) (reaffirming Doyle’s requirement of express record agreement to consolidate)
State v. Monteil, [citation="134 Hawai'i 361, 341 P.3d 567"] (2014) (colloquy requirements and caution against influencing defendant’s decision whether to testify)
State v. Tsujimura, [citation="140 Hawai'i 299, 400 P.3d 500"] (2017) (addressing use of pre-arrest silence and suppression standards)
State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984) (routine traffic stops ordinarily not custodial interrogation)