State v. Pitts., 456 P.3d 484

Background

In 2008 Joseph Pitts was tried for second-degree attempted murder after Jason Brown was stabbed; the jury convicted and Pitts was sentenced to life with parole eligibility.
At trial the State introduced a jacket with blood matching Brown; evidence showed no visible blood on Pitts’ person or on the clothes photographed by the evidence specialist.
During deliberations jurors requested scissors and gloves, opened the sealed evidence bag containing Pitts’ pants and shirt, and at least four jurors inspected the inside of the pants and observed three small stains that they “determined” must be blood.
Pitts moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct (the jurors’ examination produced new evidence), and prosecutorial misconduct (eliciting testimony about an “apology” despite a motions-in-limine ruling, and improper closing remarks suggesting Pitts tailored his defense after reviewing police reports).
The circuit court denied the new-trial motions; on appeal the Hawai‘i Supreme Court found the jurors’ discovery of stains was an outside influence that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pitts)	Held
Juror misconduct — jurors opened evidence bag, found stains on pants	Jurors examined exhibits properly admitted in evidence; no extraneous information was introduced	Jurors’ opening of packaging and discovery of stains produced new evidence and denied an impartial jury	The jurors’ discovery was an outside influence and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction vacated
Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting testimony about an "apology" barred by motion in limine	The questioning sought only to elicit any post‑incident conversation and was not intended to introduce motive evidence	The questions improperly invited inference of motive in violation of the in limine ruling; prosecutor’s conduct was problematic	Court did not decide whether reversal was required on this ground given disposition on juror misconduct, but criticized the prosecutor’s conduct and noted its prejudicial character
Prosecutorial misconduct — closing argument that Pitts “came up with” his defense after reviewing reports	Statements were reasonable inferences from the evidence	Argument improperly suggested Pitts was penalized for preparing and presenting a defense	Court held such comments infringe on defendant’s right to prepare and present a defense and were improper (did not reach plain‑error reversal)
Right to jury of peers / Batson‑type challenge — peremptory strike of juror who expressed concern about lack of African‑Americans in venire	Peremptory strike was permissible because it was not exercised on the basis of a protected characteristic	Excusal of juror who voiced concern about racial representation infringed right to jury of peers	Court noted Batson framework but did not reverse; observed courts may inquire into peremptory strikes when discrimination is suspected
Motion to dismiss indictment — failure to present exculpatory evidence to grand jury (Brown’s initial failure to identify)	Other inculpatory evidence (Igawa’s grand jury ID and subsequent identification by Brown) negated any clearly exculpatory character	Brown’s initial non‑identification was clearly exculpatory and should have been presented	Court held evidence was not clearly exculpatory in context and trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying dismissal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pauline, 60 P.3d 306 (Haw. 2002) (distinguishes permissible jury examination from experiments that produce new evidence)
State v. Estrada, 738 P.2d 812 (Haw. 1987) (jury’s exposure to improperly included exemplar held prejudicial when evidence not overwhelming)
State v. Williamson, 807 P.2d 593 (Haw. 1991) (extraneous materials in jury room can substantially prejudice defendant)
State v. Keliiholokai, 569 P.2d 891 (Haw. 1977) (jury must be free from outside influences)
State v. Chin, 353 P.3d 979 (Haw. 2015) (presumption of prejudice from outside influence unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Williams v. State, 448 So.2d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (jury discovery of unstated bloody item during deliberations prejudiced defendant)
State v. Joseph, 883 P.2d 657 (Haw. App. 1994) (items in exhibits that were not properly in evidence constitute outside influence)