Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Hawaii v. Henry Moisa

January 25, 2012

STATE OF HAWAII,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HENRY MOISA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 08-1-1000)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Ginoza, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Henry Moisa (Moisa) appeals from Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (Judgment) filed August 4, 2010 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit *fn1 (circuit court).

A jury found Moisa guilty of three counts of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(1)(c) (Supp. 2010).*fn2

On appeal, Moisa contends the circuit court erred

(1) in not granting his August 13, 2008 Motion for Bill of Particulars or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Motion for Bill of Particulars);

(2) when it denied his November 17, 2008 Motion in Limine No. 2 regarding the introduction of pornographic materials into evidence, but allowed testimony at trial about the materials, testimony he claims violated Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 403, 404, 404(b), and 611;

(3) by allowing Dr. Alexander Bivens (Dr. Bivens) and Dr. Guliz Erdem (Dr. Erdem) to testify at trial, which amounted to improper vouching;

(4) in refusing to allow him to cross-examine and to present evidence of prior psychological and psychiatric history of Complaining Witness (CW) and precluding evidence from CW's father that CW had made prior sex abuse allegations;

(5) in not granting his May 21, 2010 Motion for

Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, a New Trial (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal) when the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt;

(6) by refusing to give a jury instruction on alibi defense and by not giving an Arceo *fn3 unanimity instruction before the jury began deliberations;

(7) in denying his August 10, 2010 Motion to Dismiss Due to Constitutional Errors and Rule 16 Violations or for New Trial (Motion to Dismiss or for New Trial) after it was revealed that his constitutional right to pretrial discovery had been violated; and

(8) in not sufficiently deleting prejudicial unproven allegations against him in the Presentence Report. Upon careful review of 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, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Moisa's points of error as follows:

(1) The circuit court did not err when it denied Moisa a bill of particulars requiring the State of Hawaii (the State) to provide specific dates when the alleged sexual assaults occurred. In general, where time is not of the essence in the elements of the offense, "the precise time and date of the commission of an offense is not regarded as a material element." Arceo, 84 Hawaii at 13, 928 P.2d at 855. The precise date and time of an alleged sexual assault of a minor "are not elements of the offense and are unnecessary to sustain a conviction." Id. (quoting People v. Jones, 792 P.2d 643, 655 (Cal. 1990)). "Hawaii has long recognized that, in cases involving sexual abuse of minors, it is sufficient, in the indictment, to allege that the offense occurred over a particular time span[.]". State v. Sherman, 70 Haw. 334, 339, 770 P.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.