Hawaii Supreme Court

State of Hawai'I, Petitioner-Appellee v. Manuel Jhun, Respondent-Appellant

October 11, 199683 Haw. 472

Summary

The court reversed the intermediate appellate court's decision granting Jhun a new trial and affirmed his assault conviction. It held that testimony recounting an absent witness's statements recorded in a police report was inadmissible hearsay because the public-records exception did not eliminate the multiple hearsay layers. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the conviction and rejection of Jhun's justification defense.

Holding

  • Admissibility of the officer's testimony about the absent witness's recorded statements. The officer's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The public-records exception applies to factual findings based on the preparer's own knowledge or observations, not to testimony recounting a third party's out-of-court statements recorded in a police form.
  • Standard of appellate review for the hearsay ruling. The hearsay ruling was reviewed under the right/wrong standard because applying the relevant evidentiary provisions required no discretionary judgment call concerning trustworthiness.
  • Sufficiency of the evidence and denial of the post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court properly denied Jhun's post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, substantial evidence supported every material element of assault in the second degree.
  • Defense of force for the protection of another person. Once Jhun introduced evidence that he used force to protect Ronald, the prosecution bore the burden of disproving the facts constituting justification beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury was properly instructed on that defense.
  • Remaining evidentiary and mistrial claims. The trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings concerning the arresting officer's statement, the victim's reference to a prior bad act, the proposed cross-examination, the excluded prior-inconsistent-statement witness, or the prosecution's question about Ronald's arrest.

Docket 16139

Cited authorities

  • Rule 803(b)(8)(C)
  • Rule 808(b)(8)(C)
  • Rule 803(b)(8)(C)
  • Rule 402
  • Rule 802
  • Rule 801(3)
  • Rule 803(b)(8)(C)
  • Rule 803(b)(8)(C)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF