State v. Lealao
126 Haw. 460, 2012 WL 1085916, 272 P.3d 1227 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 409.5, which makes expressions of sympathy inadmissible to prove liability, applies only in civil cases and not in criminal proceedings. In a criminal case, a defendant's statement of apology or regret is admissible if it is relevant and qualifies as a party admission under HRE Rule 803(a)(1).
Facts:
- On August 2, 2008, a birthday party was held for the son of Chelcey Pang Lealao and Kui Lealao.
- During the party, Emil Kruse III (Chelcey's uncle) and Virgil Tamayo engaged in a loud verbal argument in the parking lot.
- Kui Lealao, nephew of Blue Lealao, attempted to intervene in the argument between Kruse and Tamayo.
- Kruse pushed Kui Lealao away during the intervention attempt.
- Shortly thereafter, Blue Lealao walked up to Emil Kruse III and struck him in the face, causing Kruse to fall to the ground unconscious.
- Over a year after the incident and approximately a week and a half before trial, Blue Lealao had a phone conversation with Chelcey Pang Lealao.
- During this phone call, Lealao stated, 'I’m so sorry. I made a big mistake.'
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Hawai`i charged Blue Lealao with Assault in the First Degree in the circuit court of the first circuit (trial court).
- Prior to trial, Lealao filed a motion in limine to exclude his statement, 'I'm so sorry. I made a big mistake,' pursuant to HRE Rule 409.5.
- The trial court partially granted the motion, excluding 'I'm so sorry' but admitting the phrase 'I made a big mistake.'
- A jury found Lealao guilty of the lesser included offense of Assault in the Second Degree.
- Lealao, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).
- The ICA affirmed the trial court's judgment, assuming without deciding that HRE Rule 409.5 could apply in criminal cases.
- Lealao, as petitioner, filed an Application for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 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 Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 409.5, which makes expressions of sympathy inadmissible to prove liability, apply in criminal cases to bar the admission of a defendant's statement of apology or regret?
Opinions:
Majority - Acoba, J.
No. Hawai`i Rules of Evidence Rule 409.5, which bars the admission of expressions of sympathy to prove liability, applies only in civil cases, not in criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that the plain language of the rule, its legislative history, and its commentary all indicate an intent to apply it exclusively in the civil context to encourage settlements and healing without fear of establishing civil liability. The rule's text refers to 'liability' rather than 'guilt,' and its legislative history shows it was broadened from medical malpractice to all civil actions. Therefore, the trial court and Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) erred in applying HRE Rule 409.5. The court further held that the trial court erred by severing 'I'm so sorry' from 'I made a big mistake,' as this removed important context and had the potential to mislead the jury. However, this error was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Lealao testified at trial and had the opportunity to explain what he meant by the statement, thereby providing the context himself. The full statement was relevant to rebut Lealao's self-defense claim and was admissible as a party admission under HRE Rule 803(a)(1), which does not require that a statement be against interest when made, only that it is a party's own statement offered against them.
Analysis:
This decision definitively clarifies the scope of HRE Rule 409.5, establishing a bright-line rule that it does not apply in criminal cases. This prevents defendants from using a rule designed for civil settlements to shield potentially incriminating statements of regret or fault from a criminal jury. The case sets a precedent that statements of apology in the criminal context should be analyzed for admissibility under standard evidentiary rules of relevance and hearsay exceptions, particularly the party-admission rule. It also underscores the importance of admitting a complete statement to provide full context, although it demonstrates that such an error can be harmless if the defendant has the opportunity to explain the statement through their own testimony.
