State v. Wong

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reviews the dismissal of indictments arising from alleged misconduct involving Bishop Estate transactions. The court holds that the prosecution was required to obtain judicial review of attorney-client privilege issues before presenting arguably privileged testimony to the grand jury, and that the presentation and bolstering of such testimony undermined the fairness and integrity of the grand jury proceedings. It affirms the dismissals and remands for entry of dismissal orders with prejudice.

Holdings

1. When a prosecutor seeks to present arguably privileged testimony before a grand jury, the prosecutor must either give notice to the privilege holder and counsel so that the privilege may be asserted or waived, or, if counsel does not raise the issue, seek a court ruling on the privilege before presenting the testimony.
2. Prosecutorial conduct that prevents the grand jury from exercising fairness and impartiality and induces action other than that warranted by fairly presented evidence is presumptively prejudicial and may require dismissal of the indictment.
3. A prosecutor may not improperly bolster a witness's testimony before the grand jury by emphasizing that the witness is testifying under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege when the privilege and exception have not been judicially determined.
4. A prosecutor's failure to allow a grand-jury witness to provide testimony that clearly would negate guilt constitutes prejudicial misconduct warranting dismissal of the indictment.
5. Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy when prosecutorial misconduct in grand-jury proceedings seriously threatens the integrity of the judicial process or clearly denies due process and fundamental fairness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing indictments based on prosecutorial misconduct during grand-jury proceedings.
2. Whether a prosecutor seeking to present arguably privileged attorney testimony to a grand jury must provide notice and obtain a preliminary judicial determination of attorney-client privilege and any applicable exception.
3. Whether the State improperly bolstered privileged testimony by presenting it as testimony covered by the crime-fraud exception.
4. Whether the State's presentation of incomplete attorney testimony and restriction of clearly exculpatory witness testimony undermined the fairness and impartiality of the grand jury.
5. Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate remedy for the prosecutorial misconduct.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded