State v. Williams, CAAP-20-0000018

Defendant Jaisan S. Williams was convicted after a bench trial in District Court (Wahiawa) of Excessive Speeding (HRS §291C‑105).
The prosecution introduced a speed reading from a TruSpeed LIDAR (Laser Device) by HPD Officer Zachary Plevel; defense lodged a general "lack of foundation" objection at trial.
After the State rested, the court conducted a Tachibana colloquy with Williams; the court did not advise that (a) testimony would be subject to cross‑examination, or (b) a decision not to testify could not be used against him.
Williams waived testifying and the court convicted; Williams appealed arguing (1) the Tachibana colloquy was deficient and (2) the Laser Device reading lacked proper foundational proof.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the conviction because the record did not show a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the right to testify (Tachibana error) and the State did not show harmlessness; the court declined to reach the evidentiary challenge on the merits, finding it inadequately preserved, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Tachibana colloquy (waiver of right to testify)	State concedes the colloquy was deficient but did not argue harmlessness	Colloquy failed to inform Williams of cross‑examination and that the court could not draw adverse inference from silence; waiver was therefore not knowing and voluntary	Court vacated conviction: colloquy was deficient and State did not show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt
Foundation for Laser Device speed reading	State argued proper foundation existed (training and testing), and that any challenge was waived	Williams argued the State failed to prove the operator met manufacturer training requirements and/or that the device was properly tested	Court found Williams failed to preserve the specific foundational objections at trial; appellate court declined to reverse on this ground and concluded substantial evidence supported conviction if appellate review reached merits

Tachibana v. State, [citation="79 Hawai'i 226"] (1995) (trial court must advise defendant on right to testify and obtain on‑the‑record waiver)
State v. Celestine, [citation="142 Hawai'i 165"] (2018) (Tachibana requires a true colloquy — a verbal exchange to ensure understanding)
State v. Martin, [citation="146 Hawai'i 365"] (2020) (summarizes right‑to‑testify advisals and related case law)
State v. Pomroy, [citation="132 Hawai'i 85"] (2014) (examples of deficient Tachibana advisements)
State v. Eduwensuyi, [citation="141 Hawai'i 328"] (2018) (failure to advise defendant that no one can prevent them from testifying renders colloquy deficient)
State v. Amiral, [citation="132 Hawai'i 170"] (2014) (foundation for laser speed evidence requires proof of operator training per manufacturer)
State v. Gonzalez, [citation="128 Hawai'i 314"] (2012) (foundation requires device accuracy testing and proof device was operating properly)
State v. Long, [citation="98 Hawai'i 348"] (2002) (a general "lack of foundation" objection ordinarily does not preserve specific foundational issues for appeal)
State v. Moses, [citation="102 Hawai'i 449"] (2003) (failure to raise argument at trial constitutes waiver on appeal)
State v. Hoang, [citation="93 Hawai'i 333"] (2000) (appellate review must determine preservation, prejudice, and consider prosecutorial concession)