State v. St. Clair4/30/2003
* FOR PUBLICATION *
The defendant-appellant Stephen Keith St. Clair appeals from the judgment of the third circuit court, filed on August 5, 2002, the Honorable Ronald Ibarra presiding, adjudging him guilty of manslaughter, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-702(1)(a) (1993), operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) (Supp. 2002), and driving without no-fault insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (Supp. 2002). Specifically, St. Clair contends that the circuit court erred: (1) in partially granting the prosecution's motion to allow evidence of Canadian convictions, on the bases (a) that he was not afforded the protections of the Hawaii Constitution in the Canadian proceedings and (b) that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 403 (1993) and 404(b) (Supp. 2002); (2) in denying St. Clair's motion for dismissal with prejudice due to prosecutorial misconduct, on the basis that the deputy prosecuting attorney (DPA) improperly questioned St. Clair regarding certain facts pertaining to a prior DUI incident in Canada; and (3) in denying St. Clair's motion for a new trial, on the basis that there was a reasonable possibility that the foregoing prosecutorial misconduct contributed to his conviction.
For the reasons discussed infra in Section III, we believe that St. Clair's arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2002, St. Clair was charged by complaint with: (1) manslaughter, in violation of HRS § 707-702(1)(a) (Count I), see supra note 1; (2) negligent homicide in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707-702.5(1) (1993) (Count II); (3) DUI, in violation of HRS § 291E-81 (Count III); (4) reckless driving of a vehicle, in violation of HRS § 291-2 (Supp. 2002) (Count IV); (5) reckless endangering in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 707-714(1) (1993) (Count V); (6) driving without no-fault insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (Count VI), see supra note 3; and (7) failure to drive on right side of roadway, in violation of HRS § 291C-41 (1993) (Count VII). The charges arose out of an incident that occurred on February 23, 2002, in which the vehicle that St. Clair was driving while intoxicated struck and killed a pedestrian, Jane O'Brien.
On May 3, 2002, the prosecution filed a motion to allow evidence of Canadian convictions arising out of proceedings in which St. Clair was represented by counsel at trial and at sentencing. Specifically, the prosecution sought to admit evidence of the factual bases for two prior DUI convictions in Canada in order to show that, in the present matter, St. Clair acted with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he would injure someone, because he had first-hand experience that "when he drove after drinking substantial amounts, he was not in sufficient control of his faculties to drive in an appropriate manner."
On May 13, 2002, St. Clair filed a memorandum in opposition to the prosecution's motion, in which he argued (1) that, because the prosecution "admits that it seeks to use prior convictions to establish mens rea for manslaughter," the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to HRE Rule 404(b), see supra note 4, and (2) that, because the evidence was not probative of truth or veracity, it should not be admitted for impeachment purposes pursuant to HRE Rule 609(a) (1993).
On June 10, 2002, the circuit court conducted a hearing regarding the prosecution's motion, during which Larry Stein, Assistant Crown Counsel for the province of Alberta, Canada, testified regarding St
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|