NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NO. 26511
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
After a careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we resolve the issues Hoff raises on appeal as follows:
I.
During her rebuttal closing
argument, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) argued that in contrast
with the prosecution's
witnesses, Hoff was the "only person" with an interest in the outcome
of the case and a motive to lie. Hoff argues that the
DPA's remarks infringed on Hoff's right to testify in his own defense
at trial. We disagree. Once Hoff took the stand, his
credibility was subject to attack, including attacks based on any bias,
interest, or motive he had in testifying. State
v.
Apilando, 79 Hawai`i 128, 142, 900 P.2d 135, 149
(1995). We conclude that the DPA's remarks about Hoff's interest in the
outcome of the case and motive to lie were not improper. Id.
(holding that the prosecutor's comment that, "because [the
defendant] had the highest stake in the outcome of the case, he had the
greatest motive to lie," was not improper).
II.
The circuit court permitted the CW's mother to testify about behavioral changes she noticed in the CW immediately after the alleged sexual assault. These included the CW's waking up at night crying and screaming for several days. We reject Hoff's argument that the testimony of the CW's mother about the CW's behavioral changes was inadmissible absent expert testimony to explain the connection between the CW's behavioral changes and the alleged sexual assault.
We conclude that the potential for a traumatic event to cause changes in a person's behavior falls into the category of common life experiences. Accordingly, the relevance and admissibility of the evidence regarding the CW's behavioral changes did not depend on testimony from an expert. See Id. at 141, 148 (concluding that a police officer's observations of the demeanor and appearance of a five-year-old complainant shortly after the alleged sexual assault "were relevant and served as circumstantial evidence regarding whether [the complainant's] behavior was consistent with a child her age who had experienced a recent upsetting event.") The evidence of the CW's behavioral changes was not so far removed from the jury's common experiences and realm of understanding that expert testimony was required for the evidence to be admissible.
We also reject Hoff's related claim that it was impermissible for the DPA, in closing argument, to argue that the CW's behavioral changes provided corroboration that the sexual assault had occurred. A prosecutor is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and is given wide latitude to discuss the evidence during closing argument. State v. Clark, 83 Hawai`i 289, 304, 926 P.2d 194, 209 (1996). The inference argued by the DPA was reasonable.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Judgment filed on April 22, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, March 15, 2006.
On the briefs:
1. The Honorable Karen S. S. Ahn presided.
2. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(1)(b) (Supp. 2005) provides as follows:
. . . .
(b) The person knowingly engages
in sexual penetration with another person who is less than
fourteen years old[.]