NOT FOR
PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO.
25839
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF
THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
STATE
OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CINDY
K. TAKARA, and KEVIN WILLIAM CROSS,
Defendants-Appellees
APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CR.
NO. 98-1852)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By:
Watanabe, Presiding Judge, Foley, and Nakamura, JJ.)
The State of
Hawai`i (the State) appeals from the April 24, 2003, "Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery of Confidential
Informant" (Order Compelling Discovery) of the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).
(1) Defendants-Appellees
Cindy K. Takara (Takara) and Kevin William
Cross (Cross) were charged by indictment with Promoting a Dangerous
Drug (methamphetamine) in the Third Degree, in
violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1243 (1993)
(Count 1); Promoting a Dangerous Drug (cocaine) in the
Third Degree (Count 2); and unlawful possession or use of drug
paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (1993
and 2002 Supp.) Prior to trial,
Takara filed a "Motion to Compel Discovery of Confidential Informant"
in which Cross
later joined. The Order Compelling Discovery required the State to
disclose the identity of a confidential informant (CI)
and dismissed the indictment against Takara and Cross (collectively
"the Defendants") because the State refused to comply
with its disclosure obligations.
On appeal, the State argues that the Order
Compelling Discovery must be vacated because the circuit court made
procedural and substantive errors in ordering the State to disclose the
CI's identity. We disagree.
After careful review and
consideration of the record and the briefs submitted by
the parties, we hold as follows:
1. The circuit court's Order Compelling
Discovery was sufficient to comply with the procedural requirements set
forth in
State v. Rodrigues, 88
Hawai`i 363, 364, 966 P.2d 1089, 1090 (1988), for determining whether
to
disclose information
relating to a confidential informant.
2. The circuit court did not err in
concluding that the CI would be able to provide testimony necessary to
a fair
determination of the issue of the Defendants' guilt or innocence and
that the failure to disclose the CI's identity would
infringe upon the Defendants' constitutional rights. Hawaii Rules of
Evidence Rule 510(c)(2) (1993); Hawai`i Rules of
Penal Procedure Rule 16(e)(5)(ii). Accordingly, the Order Compelling
Discovery was not substantively defective.
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the April 24, 2003,
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery of Confidential Informant" of
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August
29, 2006.
On the briefs:
Alexa D.M. Fujise,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven Nichols,
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellee
CINDY TAKARA.
Jeffrey Arakaki,
for Defendant-Appellee
KEVIN CROSS.
1. The
Honorable Michael Town presided.