Case Notes

• Publication year: 2018

CASE NOTES

Page 34

Supreme Court

Criminal

State v. Celestine, No. SCWC-14-0000335, April 12, 2018, (Pollack, J., with Recktenwald, CJ., dissenting joined by Nakayama, J.). This appeal arose from a challenge by Appellant to her conviction based on the validity of her waiver of the right to testify at trial. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the record did not support a conclusion that Appellant's waiver of the right to testify was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made.

Recktenwald, CJ., joined by Nakayama, J., dissented. Recktenwald, CJ., stated that the majority vacated Appellant's conviction because it concluded that the district court failed to engage Appellant in a true colloquy. Although Recktenwald, CJ., acknowledged that the colloquy fell short of the Hawaii Supreme Court's instructions to trial courts in Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawaii 226, 900 P2d 1293 (1995), and its progeny, he would nonetheless hold that Appellant's waiver of her right to testify was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances. It appeared from the record that Appellant understood the nature of the proceedings, and her responses to the district court's questions evinced no uncertainty or misunderstanding regarding her right to testify. The Tachibana colloquy is a means to an end-i.e., protecting a defendant's constitutional right to testify-not an end unto itself.

State v. Williander, No. SCWC-15-0000759, April 4, 2018, (Recktenwald, CJ.). This case required the Hawaii Supreme Court to determine if the circuit court erred in failing to continue trial because of the unavailability of a defense witness. Following closing arguments, Williander renewed his motion for mistrial, which the circuit court denied, and the jury found Williander guilty as charged. Williander then moved for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. On appeal, the ICA affirmed the circuit court's holdings. In his application to the Hawaii Supreme Court, Williander argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to continue trial, motion for mistrial, and motion for new trial because of the police officer's unavailability. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that defense counsel exercised due diligence by properly subpoenaing the officer. The Hawaii Supreme Court also concluded that the police officer's observations provided a means for Williander to challenge a bystander's testimony that Williander demanded victim's wallet. The bystander's testimony...