In re Interest of GH

152 Hawai‘i 8

518 P.3d 1158

In the INTEREST OF GH

SCWC-19-0000583

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

October 10, 2022

Walter J. Rodby, Honolulu, for petitioner

Brian R. Vincent for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

This case arises from an adjudication of GH ("Minor"), a teenager at the time, as a law violator by the Family Court of the First Circuit ("family court"), for sexually assaulting the complaining witness ("CW"), who was nine years old at the time of the assault.

On certiorari, Minor alleges the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") erred by (1) affirming the family court's exclusion, based on Rule 412 (2016) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence ("HRE"), of Minor's proffered extrinsic evidence of CW's past false sexual assault allegations; (2) concluding the family court had not erred by failing to make a preliminary determination as to the truth or falsity of CW's past sexual assault allegations, as required by State v. West, 95 Hawai‘i 452, 24 P.3d 648 (2001) ; and (3) concluding there was sufficient evidence to deem Minor a law violator.

We preliminarily address the untimeliness of Minor's certiorari application, which was filed more than eight months after the ICA's October 30, 2020 judgment on appeal. In State v. Uchima, 147 Hawai‘i 64, 464 P.3d 852 (2020), we held that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to effective assistance of counsel during all stages of an appeal, which includes procedural compliance with the statutory requirements for filing an application for writ of certiorari. 147 Hawai‘i at 79, 464 P.3d at 867. We have also held that "[b]ecause effective assistance of counsel is fundamental to a fair trial, it should be guaranteed in juvenile law violator proceedings as have other fundamental criminal case guarantees." In re Doe, 107 Hawai‘i 12, 16, 108 P.3d 966, 970 (2005). Hence, Uchima’s holding applies to juvenile law violation cases.

Addressing the merits, we hold that (1) under the circumstances of this case, it was an abuse of discretion for the family court to exclude the proffered evidence based on the procedural notice requirements of HRE Rule 412 ; (2) as further discussed below, if a defendant seeks to admit a complaining witness's false allegations of sexual assault, then admissibility of such evidence is not subject to HRE Rule 412 or West, 95 Hawai‘i 452, 24 P.3d 648 ; and (3) Minor's insufficiency of evidence argument lacks merit.

We therefore vacate the ICA's October 30, 2020 judgment on appeal as well as the family court's June 5, 2019 decree, July 23, 2019 order, and September 24, 2019 findings of fact and conclusions of law. We remand to the family court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Background

A. Family court proceedings

1. Charges

On February 5, 2019, the State of Hawai‘i ("the State") filed six amended petitions against Minor¹ : one for first-degree sexual assault,² four for third-degree sexual assault,³ and one for attempted first-degree sexual assault.⁴

2. Motion in limine and hearing on the motion

On February 8, 2019, the State filed a motion in limine based on HRE Rule 412⁵ to prohibit the defense and witnesses from referring to "[a]ny evidence, including but not limited to reputation and/or opinion, relating to the past sexual history, behavior and/or character of [CW]." At the time, trial was scheduled for April 17, 2019. The State said it had reviewed child welfare reports and believed Minor might attempt to inquire into the past sexual history of CW in violation of HRE Rule 412. Minor did not file a memorandum in response to this motion. Minor also did not file any HRE Rule 412(c) notice or motion regarding CW's past sexual behavior allegations of sexual assault by others.

Just before beginning the rescheduled June 4, 2019 bench trial, the family court heard the State's motion in limine. The State indicated Minor might attempt to inquire into CW's past sexual history, which it said must be excluded under HRE Rule 412. Minor responded that although he would not offer evidence of CW's past sexual conduct, he would be going into accusations she had made against others.

3. Bench trial

At trial, various witnesses testified. CW testified as follows:

She was sexually assaulted by Minor when she was nine years old. At the time, she lived with her mother and father, two older sisters, the sisters’ boyfriends, and her little sister. She met Minor as a friend of a neighbor with whom she often spent time. She came to view Minor as an older brother, and Minor often slept over at her house.

One night, Minor came into her room and sexually assaulted her. CW described the assault in detail. Minor told her that if she told anyone, something would happen to her. CW did not speak about what happened until she told a hospital employee.

CW was later transferred into the care of a foster mother, her aunt. Her aunt had a daughter, CW's cousin, who was three years older. After moving in with her aunt, CW went to the Children's Justice Center ("CJC") and spoke with an interviewer about the sexual assault by Minor. She was later taken to a doctor for a physical examination.

On cross-examination, Minor asked CW whether she had told her cousin that her sister's boyfriend had sexually assaulted her. CW responded she had told her cousin that her sister's boyfriend would watch her when she slept, but denied saying he had touched her sexually. Minor asked the same question regarding CW's father. CW responded she had only told her cousin her father at times made her feel uncomfortable. Minor also asked whether CW told her cousin that another cousin had touched and raped her. The court sustained the State's objection to this question.

Minor then also asked whether CW had told her aunt she had been sexually assaulted by her father. The State objected on relevance and hearsay grounds. Minor responded he was attempting to cross-examine CW regarding past false accusations of sexual assault, stating "when the [CW] made a statement to the police, she denied these false accusations." The family court concluded it would "allow some leeway" and permitted Minor to ask CW whether she had told her aunt she had been sexually assaulted by her father. CW again responded she had not said that her father sexually assaulted her, but that certain things he did had made her uncomfortable.

Minor then attempted to adduce extrinsic evidence of CW's alleged false sexual assault allegations. Minor called CW's aunt as a witness and asked what CW had said about being sexually assaulted. The family court sua sponte disallowed a response on hearsay grounds.⁶ Minor then indicated he was ready to call CW's cousin to the stand to ask similar questions about CW's false allegations, but the family court disallowed any such testimony.⁷

At the close of evidence, the family court ruled it had properly excluded testimony from others concerning CW's past statements regarding other alleged sexual assaults because Minor never filed a HRE Rule 412 motion with fifteen days’ notice before trial. Minor argued that a HRE Rule 412 motion was not necessary because the defense only intended to ask about false accusations, not sexual behavior, but the family court disagreed.

4. Adjudication and sentence

The family court then adjudicated Minor a law violator on one count of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of third-degree sexual assault and dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice. The family court committed Minor to the custody of the Office of Youth Services for commitment to the Hawai‘i Youth Correctional Facility until age nineteen, with orders for the Minor to be referred for behavioral services. On June 5, 2019, the family court filed its "Decree Re: Law Violation Petition(s)" ("June 5, 2019 decree").

5. Post-trial motions

On June 13, 2019, Minor moved for a new trial, arguing the family court erred in precluding Minor from eliciting evidence of CW's false accusations of sexual assault by others. Citing to West, 95 Hawai‘i 452, 24 P.3d 648, Minor asserted such evidence was not "sexual conduct" evidence under HRE Rule 412. Minor also alternatively argued that, pursuant to West, the family court erred in not making a preliminary determination as to the falsity of CW's prior allegations. Minor argued he would have met his burden of proving that CW's statements were false. Minor also asserted that there were "prejudicial violations of the Minor's constitutional rights" and that he had been denied a fair trial.

On July 23, 2019, the family court affirmed its evidentiary rulings based on Minor's failure to file a HRE Rule 412 motion before trial ("July 23, 2019 order"). The family court's post-appeal September 24, 2019 findings of fact and conclusions of law stated (1) defense counsel never filed a HRE Rule 412 motion before trial; (2) under West, 95 Hawai‘i at 459, 24 P.3d at 655, "where the truth or falsity of a statement regarding an unrelated sexual assault is unknown, it falls within the purview of the rape shield statute and must be analyzed accordingly"; (3) defense counsel only asserted CW's prior statements may have been false; and (4) because the threshold of falsity was not met, CW's statements fell within HRE Rule 412 and were properly excluded.

B. ICA proceedings

On appeal to the ICA, Minor argued the family court erred because (1) evidence of CW's prior inconsistent statements about prior sexual assaults should have been admitted under HRE Rule 613(b) (2016);⁸ (2) CW's allegations should not have been excluded under HRE Rule 412 because West held that a complaining witness's false statements of prior unrelated sexual assaults are not excluded by HRE Rule 412 ; (3) in any event, the family court should have made a preliminary determination as to the falsity of CW's prior allegations based on West; and (4) there was insufficient evidence that he was a law violator.

In its summary disposition order, the ICA held evidence of...