State v. Canady
911 P.2d 104, 80 Haw. 469, 1996 Haw. App. LEXIS 10 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A declarant's out-of-court statement of fear is not admissible under the state of mind hearsay exception to prove the underlying facts that caused the fear unless the declarant's state of mind is directly relevant to an issue in the case. Additionally, a prior inconsistent statement is not admissible as substantive evidence in Hawai'i if the declarant cannot recall the subject matter of the statement, precluding meaningful cross-examination about the underlying events.
Facts:
- Police officers responded to a domestic argument call and found the Complainant injured, with most of her injuries to her facial area.
- Complainant was transported to Hilo Hospital for her injuries.
- While at the hospital, Complainant initially spoke to Officer Kanehailua but then stopped, stating she was afraid that if Steven Canady, her boyfriend, saw her talking to the officer, he 'would come in and beat her up.'
- Officer Kanehailua filled out a 'Domestic Violence Case/Victim’s Statement' based on Complainant's verbal responses, which Complainant signed.
- The Statement identified the assailant as a 'friend' Complainant had lived with for '12' or '13' years at 'P.O. Box 1845, Pahoa,' an address Complainant later testified she shared only with Steven Canady.
- Officer Kanehailua located Steven Canady outside the hospital, and Steven Canady stated he wanted to go back into the emergency room to see Complainant 'one last time to apologize.'
- On July 11, 1992, Complainant was waiting in a car for Steven Canady, then awoke bleeding from her head, screaming for help, and later remembered being in the hospital but nothing of the events leading to her injury or speaking with an officer.
- Complainant testified that Steven Canady was her boyfriend and that they had lived together at P.O. Box 1845, Pahoa, for fourteen years.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 13, 1992, a Complaint was filed alleging that Steven Canady committed Abuse of a Family and Household Member in violation of HRS § 709-906(1) by striking the Complainant.
- Steven Canady was tried in a jury-waived trial before a family court judge on October 19, 1992, and November 6, 1992.
- During the trial, Steven Canady's defense counsel objected to the admission of Officer Kanehailua’s testimony regarding Complainant’s statement of fear, arguing it was hearsay, but the family court overruled the objection under the state of mind exception (HRE Rule 803(b)(3)).
- Steven Canady's defense counsel also objected to the admission of the Domestic Violence Case/Victim's Statement, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay, but the family court overruled the objection and admitted the form into evidence under the public records and reports exception (HRE Rule 803(b)(8)).
- The family court found Steven Canady guilty of Abuse of Family and Household Member, specifically stating reliance on Officer Kanehailua's testimony and 'most importantly the domestic violence statement taken by Officer Kanehailua'.
- Steven Canady (Defendant-Appellant) appealed the judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule (HRE Rule 803(b)(3)) permit the admission of a declarant's statement of fear to establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of an assault, when the declarant's state of mind is not an element of the crime or a contested defense? And can a prior inconsistent statement be admitted as substantive evidence under HRE Rule 802.1(1) when the declarant testifies but claims a lack of memory regarding the subject matter of the prior statement, thereby preventing cross-examination on the underlying events?
Opinions:
Majority - Acoba, Judge
No, the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule (HRE Rule 803(b)(3)) does not permit the admission of a declarant's statement of fear to establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of an assault when the declarant's state of mind is not an element of the crime or a contested defense. Complainant's fear was not relevant to any elements of the crime of Abuse of Family and Household Member, nor to any defense raised. HRE Rule 803(b)(3) explicitly excludes 'a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed' to prevent the hearsay rule from being circumvented by allowing an inference of the happening of an event (e.g., an assault by Defendant) from the declarant's state of mind (fear). The trial court erred in considering Complainant's fear to establish Steven Canady's identity as the perpetrator. No, a prior inconsistent statement is not admissible as substantive evidence under HRE Rule 802.1(1) when the declarant testifies but claims a lack of memory regarding the subject matter of the prior statement, thereby preventing meaningful cross-examination on the underlying events. HRE Rule 802.1(1) requires the declarant to be 'subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement.' This requirement, unlike its federal counterpart (FRE Rule 801(d)(1) as interpreted in United States v. Owens), demands that the witness be capable of testifying substantively about the event itself. This allows the trier of fact to meaningfully compare the prior version of the event with the version recounted at trial. Complainant's testimony that she could not recall the events she allegedly described in the Statement meant she could not be meaningfully cross-examined about its subject matter. Therefore, the Statement lacked the necessary trustworthiness for admission as substantive evidence under HRE Rule 802.1(1). The court also found Steven Canady's statement, 'He wanted to go back into the emergency room and see her one last time to apologize,' to be ambiguous and insufficient on its own to constitute an admission of a criminal act. Because the remaining undisputed evidence was insufficient to establish that Steven Canady abused Complainant, and the challenged evidence was improperly admitted, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the distinct interpretations of hearsay exceptions under the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence compared to the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly regarding the state of mind exception (HRE 803(b)(3)) and prior inconsistent statements (HRE 802.1(1)). By requiring the 'subject matter' of a prior statement to be available for cross-examination, Hawai'i takes a stricter approach than the federal courts, impacting the admissibility of evidence when a witness claims memory loss about the underlying events. This ruling limits the use of victim statements in domestic violence cases, especially where victims may recant or suffer memory impairment, placing a higher burden on the prosecution to present direct evidence. It reinforces that hearsay exceptions are not to be used to circumvent the core prohibition against out-of-court statements being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, especially when the declarant's mental state is not directly relevant to the legal issues.
