IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
vs.
JOSEPH CHESTER BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.)
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and
the issues raised by the parties, we hold that the circuit court correctly
determined that the identification of Brown was sufficiently reliable as
to be worthy of consideration by the jury, insofar as the record reflects
that (1) both of the identifying witnesses (a) had a good opportunity to
view Brown at the time of the charged offenses, (b) directed a high degree
of attention towards Brown at the time of the charged offenses, (c) accurately
described Brown to police officers shortly after the commission of the
charged offenses, and (d) displayed a high level of certainty at the time
each selected Brown from a field line-up, and (2) the three-day period
between the time of the commission of the charged offenses and the identification
procedure was so short as to favor reliability, see State
v. Okumura, 78 Hawai`i 383, 391-93, 894 P.2d 80, 88-90 (1995); State
v. DeCenso, 5 Haw. App. 127, 131-32, 681 P.2d 573, 577-78 (1984).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of conviction and sentence, filed on October 21, 1999, from which the present appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 9, 2000.
On the briefs:
Arthur E. Ross, for the
defendant-appellant
Joseph Chester Brown
Mangmang Qui Brown, (Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney),
for the plaintiff-appellee
State of Hawaii