271 P.3d 665
Haw.2012Background
- Defendant Valeros charged with Assault in the Second Degree in Hawai‘i (2006 incident).
- Valeros filed HRPP Rule 12.1 alibi notice; prosecution relied on CW and Miller to place alibi at 2:20 a.m. Ward Ave area.
- Prosecution later disclosed Santiago as a rebuttal witness only on Nov. 14, 2007, after flight arrangements were made.
- Santiago, previously Defense’s alibi witness, testified for Prosecution as alibi-rebuttal; Defense had not anticipated this late disclosure.
- ICA affirmed conviction; Supreme Court vacated and remanded for new trial due to HRPP Rule 12.1 violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did late disclosure violate HRPP 12.1? | Valeros: disclosure was timely; court had discretion under 12.1(e). | Santiago should have been disclosed as an additional witness; surprise prejudiced defense. | Yes; late disclosure violated HRPP 12.1. |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Prosecution’s rebuttal testimony was not dispositive. | Rebuttal testimony substantially contributed to conviction. | Not harmless; vacate and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 63 Haw. 191 (Haw. 1981) (reciprocal discovery; government must disclose rebuttal witnesses)
- Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1973) (two-way discovery; fairness in disclosure)
- Sherman, 70 Haw. 334 (Haw. 1989) (reasonable time to disclose; good cause for exceptions)
- Ah Choy, 70 Haw. 618 (Haw. 1989) (harmless-error analysis; direct testimony outweighs disclosure failure)
- State v. Dowsett, 10 Haw. App. 491 (Haw. App. 1994) (discovery standards; two-way street principle)