Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
No. SCWC-12-0000109, Thursday, May 21, 2015 – 10 a.m.
THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER DAVID, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for Petitioner:
Craig W. Jerome, Deputy Public Defender
Attorney for Respondent:
James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order granting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/03/15.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.
[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]
Petitioner-Appellant Peter David (David) applied for writ of certiorari from the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to its published opinion.
This case arises out of the fatal stabbing of Santhony Albert (Albert) on January 1, 2011. David was charged with second degree murder for Albert’s death (count I), and second degree assault for an assault on Torokas Kikku (count II) that allegedly occurred during the same incident.
At trial, David asserted that he stabbed Albert in self-defense. After David had testified, the State called two rebuttal witnesses, who contradicted parts of David’s testimony. The jury convicted David of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and third degree assault. The circuit court sentenced David to twenty years imprisonment for count I, and one year imprisonment for count II.
David appealed his conviction and sentence, and the ICA affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for re-sentencing before a different judge.
In his application, David presents the following two questions:
I. Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to present the testimony of two rebuttal witnesses.
II. Given the egregious misconduct of the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney during the sentencing hearing, whether the ICA gravely erred in remanding this case for resentencing rather than a new trial.
David argues that circuit court should not have permitted the State’s two rebuttal witnesses to testify because the State could have called them in its case-in-chief. David also argues that, during closing argument when referring to the rebuttal testimony, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) improperly argued facts that were not in evidence.
David also argues that the DPA made comments during the sentencing hearing that were an improper appeal to racial bias. David argues that the ICA’s remedy — remanding for re-sentencing — was insufficient, and that David should be granted a new trial.