State v. Celestine

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the district court failed to conduct an adequate Tachibana colloquy before accepting Ritalynn Moss Celestine’s waiver of her constitutional right to testify. The court concluded that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and vacated her conviction under HRS § 291E-61(a)(1). It also vacated the conviction under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) pursuant to State v. Won and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A Tachibana colloquy is constitutionally inadequate when the trial court advises the defendant of the right to testify and the right not to testify but fails to engage in a true verbal exchange sufficient to ascertain the defendant’s understanding of those rights and whether the decision not to testify is made with that understanding. The record therefore did not establish that Celestine knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her right to testify.
2. Once a violation of the constitutional right to testify is established, the conviction must be vacated unless the State proves the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The State failed to meet that burden because it was not knowable whether Celestine’s testimony could have established reasonable doubt as to the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge.
3. Celestine’s conviction under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) also had to be vacated under State v. Won because the threat of criminal sanctions precluded a finding that her consent to the breath test was voluntary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court obtained a valid, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Celestine’s constitutional right to testify through its Tachibana colloquy.
2. Whether the district court’s deficient Tachibana colloquy was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether Celestine’s conviction under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) could stand in light of State v. Won and the involuntariness of consent to the breath test.

Disposition

vacated