State v. Motta
659 P.2d 745 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police composite sketch based on an eyewitness's description, while technically hearsay, is admissible as substantive evidence of identity under the prior identification exception to the hearsay rule, provided the eyewitness who gave the description testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.
Facts:
- On April 29, 1980, Wendy Iwashita was working as a cashier at Anna Miller’s Coffee House when she was robbed at gunpoint.
- The robber demanded all the money from her cash register, and Iwashita complied, giving him approximately $300.00.
- Iwashita gave a description of the robber to the police.
- On May 6, 1980, Iwashita met with Joe Aragon, a police artist, who drew a composite sketch of the suspect based on her description.
- On June 3, 1980, Iwashita identified David Kalei Motta's photograph from a photographic array.
- At trial, Motta presented an alibi defense, testifying that he was at a nightclub at the time of the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- David Kalei Motta was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree robbery.
- The case was tried before a jury in a state trial court.
- During the trial, the court admitted a police composite sketch of the suspect into evidence.
- The jury found Motta guilty of first-degree robbery.
- Motta (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions and in admitting the composite sketch.
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 admission of a police composite sketch, created from an eyewitness's description, violate the rule against hearsay when the eyewitness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the identification?
Opinions:
Majority - Lum, J.
No. The admission of a police composite sketch under these circumstances does not violate the rule against hearsay. While a composite sketch is hearsay, it is admissible as a prior identification under Haw. R. Evid. 802.1(3). The court reasons that a sketch is a statement made out of court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—what the suspect looked like. However, the exception for prior identifications applies if two conditions are met: the declarant (the eyewitness) testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination, and the statement is one of identification made after perceiving the person. In this case, the eyewitness, Wendy Iwashita, testified and was available for cross-examination, eliminating the primary danger of hearsay evidence, which is the inability to test the declarant's credibility. The court also holds that such prior identifications are admissible as substantive proof of identity, not merely as corroborative evidence.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the evidentiary status of composite sketches in Hawaii, aligning state law with the Federal Rules of Evidence. By classifying composite sketches as hearsay but admitting them under the prior identification exception, the court provides a clear framework for their use. The ruling emphasizes that such evidence can be used substantively to prove identity, not just to bolster an in-court identification, thereby strengthening the prosecution's ability to use reliable, out-of-court identifications. This precedent ensures that probative identification evidence made closer to the time of the crime is not automatically excluded, so long as the defendant's right to confrontation through cross-examination is preserved.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Motta