(Amended 02/20/18)

No. SCWC-14-0000933, Tuesday, April 3, 2018, 5 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KEITH T. MATSUMOTO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

University of Hawaii at Manoa
William S. Richardson School of Law
Moot Courtroom
2515 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822

Attorney for Petitioner:

David M. Hayakawa

Attorney for Respondent:

Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/06/17.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

[  Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ] 

Brief Description:

On June 9, 2012, Petitioner Keith Matsumoto was arrested by officers of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) for sexual assault in the third degree. At the police station, Matsumoto underwent three interrogations and a polygraph examination that preceded the second interrogation. The results of the polygraph examination were inconclusive. During the interrogations and the polygraph examination, Matsumoto made statements to investigators.

Following indictment, Matsumoto moved to suppress the statements that he made during the interrogations and the polygraph examination. Matsumoto argued that his statements were not voluntary because, inter alia, they were made after he was informed by an HPD detective that he had not passed the polygraph examination and was told that it was important to tell the truth. The circuit court denied the motion. Prior to trial, the court ruled that the word “polygraph” or “test” could not be mentioned at trial and that the detective could testify only that he made a statement to Matsumoto that was not “totally true” prior to obtaining Matsumoto’s second statement. The parties were also precluded from stating that the detective’s statement was a material misrepresentation.

During trial, two redacted video recordings of Matsumoto’s interrogations were played for the jury. Matsumoto objected to giving the jury “obviously” redacted transcripts of the recordings, which objection the court overruled. After the State rested, and at the close of the evidence, Matsumoto’s motions for judgment of acquittal were denied. The court also overruled Matsumoto’s objections to the jury instructions on “sexual parts” and “intimate parts.” The jury found Matsumoto guilty as charged.

Matsumoto appealed the judgment of conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the conviction.

In his application for a writ of certiorari, Matsumoto presents four questions for review–whether the ICA erred in holding that (1) the circuit court did not err in failing to suppress his post-polygraph statements and in precluding him from adducing evidence of the detective’s statement regarding the polygraph results; (2) the jury instructions on “sexual parts” and “intimate parts” were not prejudicially erroneous and misleading; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in providing the jury with obviously-redacted copies of transcripts; and (4) the circuit court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.