 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Estrada6/8/1987
ingerprint exemplar was inadmissible evidence of an unrelated crime under HRE Rule 404(b). State v. Pokini, 57 Haw. 17, 548 P.2d 1397 (1976). Exhibit 78 also contained, moreover, fingerprint exemplars of Gamit (for "Alien Possession of a Firearm") and a Romulo Estrada (for "Hindering Prosecution"). The jury knew Gamit was with Estrada during the shooting and could have easily inferred that Romulo Estrada was a relative. Not only was the jury aware of Estrada's criminal record but might have also been prejudiced by the assumption that he associated with other criminals. State v. Medeiros, 1 Haw. App. 536, 621 P.2d 986 (1981).
The evidence in this case was close as shown by the large amounts of evidence presented by both sides and the long, three-day deliberation the jury required to reach its verdict. The jury could easily have been prejudiced into convicting Estrada based on his and his associates' fingerprint exemplars. State v. Huihui, 62 Haw. 142, 612 P.2d 115 (1980). There was no overwhelming, uncontradicted evidence of guilt, so the submission of Exhibit 78 to the jury cannot be deemed harmless. See State v. Pulawa, 62 Haw. 209, 614 P.2d 373 (1980). Judge Mossman, moreover, failed to conduct a voir dire to determine the extent of any jury prejudice. State v. Keliiholokai, 58 Haw. 356, 569 P.2d 891 (1977).
Because of the improper submission of those inadmissible portions of Exhibit 78 to the jury, we must conclude that the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Domingo, 69 Haw. 68, 733 P.2d 690 (1987). Plain error thus occurred. See State v. LaRue, 68 Haw. 575, 722 P.2d 1039 (1986).
VII.
EXPERT TESTIMONY RULINGS.
Estrada maintains that Judge Mossman arbitrarily excluded Dr. Murphy's testimony while allowing Dr. Hall to opine that Officer Taguma was very believable (though Judge Mossman had specifically warned State not to let Dr. Hall do this). State answers that 1) Dr. Murphy's testimony (that Officer Taguma had aggressive tendencies not caused by any PTSD) was cumulative of what Dr. Hall later stated; and 2) Judge Mossman promptly struck Dr. Hall's improper statements and later admonished the jury to disregard all stricken evidence.
Judge Mossman excluded Dr. Murphy's testimony when the latter could not conclude that Officer Taguma had a propensity to violence based upon a reasonable medical certainty. On direct examination, Dr. Hall testified:
Q Dr. Hall, as a result of your testing and interviews, do you have any conclusions as to Keith Taguma and PTSD?
A As a result of everything, I find him very believable in regards to what came out about the PTSD from himself, the testing, and other sources.
MR. BETTENCOURT: I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: I will sustain. I will grant that motion.
Transcript, January 29, 1986 at 140. Dr. Hall later concluded on cross-examination:
Q (By Mr. Bettencourt) Dr. Hall, is it correct that PTSD may aggravate any prior characterological conditions or symptoms but does not create them?
A It can do both.
Transcript, February 3, 1986 at 28 (emphasis added).
It is presumed that a jury will heed a trial court's instruction. State v. Perez, 64 Haw. 232,
|