Summary
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated Enrico Calara’s conviction for fourth-degree sexual assault and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court improperly admitted a police detective’s testimony that probable cause existed to arrest Calara, because the testimony carried an aura of expertise and implied that the complaining witness was credible. The court also addressed other evidentiary issues for purposes of retrial, including the need for a Rule 104 hearing regarding alleged drug use and the inadmissibility of Calara’s prior statements as character evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the detective's testimony that the complainant's allegations established probable cause to arrest Calara was inadmissible because it implicitly vouched for the complainant's credibility and invaded the province of the jury.
- Whether the circuit court was required to conduct a Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rule 104 hearing concerning evidence of the complainant's alleged drug use and its possible effect on her perception and recollection.
- Whether the complainant's statement to her aunt was improperly admitted as an excited utterance and, if so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether Calara's January and February 2007 statements that he wanted to "take" the complainant were inadmissible character evidence under HRE Rule 404(b).
- Whether the circuit court plainly erred by failing to give a limiting instruction concerning the prior statements.
Holdings
- A police detective's testimony that the complainant's allegations established probable cause to arrest the defendant was inadmissible because, in context and given the detective's experience, it implicitly communicated that the complainant was truthful and credible, thereby invading the province of the jury.
- The circuit court abused its discretion by denying a Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rule 104 hearing concerning whether evidence of the complainant's alleged drug use was admissible and whether it affected her perception or recollection.
- Calara's prior statements that he wanted to "take" the complainant should have been excluded because they were character evidence offered to show action in conformity with the alleged character and did not qualify under an HRE Rule 404(b) exception.
- The complainant's statement to her aunt was not an excited utterance and should not have been admitted on that basis.
Key quotations
“Such testimony was inadmissible under State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552, 799 P.2d 48 (1990), State v. Morris, 72 Haw. 527, 825 P.2d 1051 (1992), State v. Ryan, 112 Hawai#i 136, 144 P.3d 584 (App. 2006), and State v. Baron, 80 Hawai#i 107, 905 P.2d 613 (1995), because the testifier was imbued with an aura of expertise due to his experience, and because the testimony implied that the CW’s version of the events was truthful and believable, thus invading the province of the jury.” (132 Haw. at 393)
“We vacate the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal, vacate the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and probation sentence, and remand this case to the circuit court for retrial.” (132 Haw. at 405)
Factual background
Calara's adult niece alleged that he entered her bedroom while she slept and fondled her breast without consent. Calara denied entering the room or touching her and testified that he remained in his bedroom throughout the night. At trial, the court admitted a detective's testimony that the niece's allegations established probable cause to arrest Calara, excluded proposed evidence concerning a drug pipe without conducting a Rule 104 hearing, and admitted Calara's prior statements that he wanted to "take" the niece.
Procedural history
Calara was charged in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, tried, and convicted of sexual assault in the fourth degree. The circuit court imposed a probation sentence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the ICA judgment and the circuit court judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Vacate the ICA judgment and the circuit court judgment of conviction and probation sentence, and conduct a new trial consistent with the opinion, including exclusion of the detective's probable-cause testimony, a Rule 104 hearing concerning admissible evidence of alleged drug use and its effect on perception, and exclusion of the January and February 2007 statements under HRE Rule 404(b).