State v. Kaneaikala., 450 P.3d 761

Background:

On Jan. 24, 2015, eyewitness Mari Laraway saw a man crouched by a ground-floor apartment window and later observed his upper body inside the apartment; she called 911.
Police found Bronson Kaneaiakala naked in the building’s laundry room with items from the apartment; about 2.5–3 hours after the sighting they conducted a field show‑up: Kaneaiakala was shirtless, handcuffed, and standing by police; Laraway said she was “almost positive.”
Kaneaiakala was charged with first‑degree burglary; he moved to suppress the show‑up identification, arguing it was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable; the State stipulated the show‑up was impermissibly suggestive.
The circuit court denied suppression applying the Padilla/Biggers five‑factor totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test; a jury convicted and the ICA affirmed in a summary disposition.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that Padilla governed this case (so the denial of suppression was affirmed), but prospectively required trial courts to consider the broader HAWJIC reliability factors (and effects of suggestiveness) when ruling on admissibility and required corresponding jury instructions when identification is central.
The Court made these expanded admissibility and instruction rules prospective only; they do not affect the outcome here, so the conviction was affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kaneaiakala)	Held
Whether Laraway’s field show‑up ID should be suppressed	Even if show‑up was suggestive, Padilla/Biggers totality factors show ID was reliable and admissible	Show‑up was impermissibly suggestive and created substantial risk of misidentification requiring suppression	Under Padilla/Biggers (the controlling law at the time), court did not clearly err: ID admissible; suppression denied and conviction affirmed
Whether trial courts must use only Padilla/Biggers factors for admissibility	Padilla five factors suffice to assess reliability for admissibility	Courts should consider broader reliability variables (as in Cabagbag/HAWJIC) when suggestiveness is alleged	Prospectively, courts must consider at minimum the HAWJIC factors (and other relevant precedent‑based factors) in admissibility analyses
Whether courts must consider the effect of suggestive procedures on reliability	Suggestiveness is a threshold issue; reliability assessed via Padilla factors	Suggestiveness can distort memory and should be evaluated as part of reliability	Prospectively, courts must consider how suggestive procedures affected reliability when ruling on admissibility
Whether juries must be instructed about suggestiveness and reliability when ID is central	Existing HAWJIC instructions (3.19 / 3.19A) suffice and should be used	Jury should be instructed to evaluate suggestiveness impact when ID is central or procured suggestively	Prospectively, juries must be instructed to consider impact of suggestive procedures on identification reliability; HAWJIC 3.19 should be amended to include such language

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (cautionary statement about unreliability of eyewitness identification)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (one‑to‑one show‑ups widely condemned)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (defendant must first show identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors to evaluate reliability under totality of circumstances)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability must outweigh corrupting effect of suggestiveness)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (two‑step inquiry on suggestiveness and reliability)
State v. Padilla, 57 Haw. 150 (1976) (Hawai‘i adoption of Biggers five‑factor admissibility test)
State v. Cabagbag, [citation="127 Hawai'i 302"] (2012) (trial courts must give requested jury instruction with enumerated reliability factors)
State v. Cabinatan, [citation="132 Hawai'i 63"] (2014) (field show‑ups are inherently suggestive; jury instruction required where identification may be influenced)
State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011) (revised admissibility framework recognizing many system and estimator variables affecting identification reliability)