credibility defense in Hawaii

2021Ayres' argument that the refreshing of Officer Telles' recollection would not be a "credible showing" because the officer would "just be reading off the document" is a credibility challenge that the officer should not be believed despite the officer's testimony that his memory was refreshed. "[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact," and "the trier of fact may accept or reject an

2021Ayres' argument that the refreshing of Officer Telles' recollection would not be a "credible showing" because the officer would "just be reading off the document" is a credibility challenge that the officer should not be believed despite the officer's testimony that his memory was refreshed. "[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact," and "the trier of fact may accept or reject an

2024Is [complaining witness] believable?” Then, while *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** discussing the court’s credibility instruction, the prosecution explained that the witness’ testimony “is consistent with someone who’s been traumatized.” Recently we vacated a conviction in a sexual assault case after the prosecution during closing argument told the jury that its decision “comes down to one question, is [complaining witness] believable?” Then, while discussing the court’s credibility instruction explained that the witness’ testimony “is consistent with a ch

2022This misconduct was amplified by the DPA’s references to a credibility instruction that, by its terms, generically attacks the credibility of testifying defendants 10 and, in doing so, “transform[s] a defendant’s decision to testify at trial into an automatic burden on credibility.” Basham, 132 Hawaiʻi at 118, 319 P.3d at 1126 (cleaned up).

2019State v. Kazanas, 138 Hawaii 23, 41, 375 P.3d 1261, 1279 (2016) (holding that where the case turned on the credibility of the defense’s witness versus the State’s, the improper admission of 35 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** a statement which harmed credibility was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

1997United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1989) (“The prosecutor is free to comment on the failure of the defendant to call an available alibi witness.” (quoting United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983))); State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 254 , 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995) (citing People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 , 545 P.2d 702 (1976)); Jackson v. State, 763 P.2d 388, 389 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (“failure to put on the stand a material witness who could bolster a defendant’s alibi defense is [a] legitimate matter for prosecutorial comment during closing argument”).

1997United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1989) (“The prosecutor is free to comment on the failure of the defendant to call an available alibi witness.” (quoting United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983))); State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 254 , 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995) (citing People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 , 545 P.2d 702 (1976)); Jackson v. State, 763 P.2d 388, 389 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (“failure to put on the stand a material witness who could bolster a defendant’s alibi defense is [a] legitimate matter for prosecutorial comment during closing argument”).

1997United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1989) (“The prosecutor is free to comment on the failure of the defendant to call an available alibi witness.” (quoting United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983))); State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 254 , 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995) (citing People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 , 545 P.2d 702 (1976)); Jackson v. State, 763 P.2d 388, 389 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (“failure to put on the stand a material witness who could bolster a defendant’s alibi defense is [a] legitimate matter for prosecutorial comment during closing argument”).

1997United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1989) (“The prosecutor is free to comment on the failure of the defendant to call an available alibi witness.” (quoting United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983))); State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 254 , 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995) (citing People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 , 545 P.2d 702 (1976)); Jackson v. State, 763 P.2d 388, 389 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (“failure to put on the stand a material witness who could bolster a defendant’s alibi defense is [a] legitimate matter for prosecutorial comment during closing argument”).

1997United States v. Santana, 877 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1989) (“The prosecutor is free to comment on the failure of the defendant to call an available alibi witness.” (quoting United States v. Schultz, 698 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1983))); State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 254 , 901 P.2d 178, 185 (1995) (citing People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 , 545 P.2d 702 (1976)); Jackson v. State, 763 P.2d 388, 389 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (“failure to put on the stand a material witness who could bolster a defendant’s alibi defense is [a] legitimate matter for prosecutorial comment during closing argument”).