State v. Tetu.
139 Haw. 207
| Haw. | 2016Background
- In March 2010 surveillance video captured Robert Tetu entering the locked basement utility/storage closets of a private condominium (Maunaihi Terrace), taking items, and wiping door knobs; he was later charged with second-degree burglary.
- Defense counsel received police photos, diagrams, and video but was denied on-site access by the condominium manager and later by the circuit court when counsel moved to compel inspection for measurements, orientation, and additional photographs.
- The prosecutor (without notifying defense counsel) later visited and photographed the premises; the defense moved to exclude those photographs but the court admitted them.
- At trial the prosecution used the manager’s testimony and the newly taken photos alongside surveillance footage; defense counsel had difficulty orienting himself on cross-examination and argued access was necessary for effective representation.
- The jury convicted Tetu of burglary in the second degree; the ICA affirmed denial of the discovery motion and the conviction; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tetu's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRPP Rule 16 or other discovery rules require prosecutor to provide access to a privately owned crime scene | Rule 16 only covers materials in prosecutor’s possession or control; Maunaihi Terrace was not controlled by the State | Defense argues Rule 16 shouldn’t limit constitutional rights to investigate the scene | Court: Rule 16 does not exhaust constitutional protections; courts may order access under constitutional principles and their inherent/subpoena powers |
| Whether the Hawai‘i Constitution (effective assistance clause) entitles defendant to access the crime scene | State argued surveillance and provided materials made inspection unnecessary | Defense argued scene inspection is integral to effective investigation, cross-examination, and presentation of defense | Court: Right to effective assistance (Haw. Const. art I, §14) includes, subject to restrictions, counsel’s ability timely to inspect the scene |
| Whether due process guarantees a defendant access to the crime scene to present a complete defense | State emphasized privacy and alleged irrelevance / passage of time | Defense argued due process requires access to the ‘‘raw materials’’ integral to building a defense and a level playing field | Court: Due process (art I, §5) independently secures right to access crime scene (with time/place/manner limits) |
| How to balance defendant’s access against private-party privacy; and whether denial was harmless error | State relied on relevancy, passage of time, and cumulative evidence; court below found access speculative | Defense sought court-ordered limited access with restrictions | Court: Access is not unlimited but courts should impose time/place/manner restrictions; here denial was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- State in Interest of A.B., 99 A.3d 782 (N.J. 2014) (recognizing counsel’s scene visit can be constitutionally required and may be professionally obligatory)
- Commonwealth v. Matis, 915 N.E.2d 212 (Mass. 2009) (trial court may order limited pretrial access to a private residence subject to scope and privacy protections)
- Henshaw v. Commonwealth, 451 S.E.2d 415 (Va. Ct. App. 1994) (due process right to view, photograph, and measure a private crime scene when relevant)
- Williams v. Washington, 59 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1995) (failure to investigate/visit scene can constitute ineffective assistance)
- State v. Pond, 193 P.3d 368 (Haw. 2008) (constitutional rights cannot be subordinated to discovery rules)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (presumption of innocence and reasonable-doubt standard foundational to fairness of criminal trials)