Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
No. SCWC-17-0000701, Thursday, October 17, 2019, 10 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTHONY G. BEAUDET-CLOSE, 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:
Victor M. Cox
Attorney for respondent:
Stephen L. Frye, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/20/19.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Anthony Beaudet-Close (Beaudet-Close) was charged with attempted murder and assault after he was involved in an altercation with the complaining witness (CW). During a video-recorded interview, a police detective asked Beaudet-Close if he was willing to return to the scene of the altercation to reenact the altercation. Beaudet-Close declined to participate in the reenactment.
At trial, over Beaudet-Close’s objections that the evidence was unduly prejudicial, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) permitted CW’s brother to testify to CW’s injuries, allowed the State to present photographs of the scene depicting pools of blood, and allowed the State to play the video-recorded interview before the jury. Beaudet-Close filed a Motion for Mistrial, and argued that by playing the interview before the jury, the State impermissibly used his invocation of the right to remain silent against him at trial. The circuit court denied Beaudet-Close’s motion. The jury subsequently convicted Beaudet-Close of attempted murder. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Beaudet-Close’s application for writ of certiorari presents two questions for review: (1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to explain its Hawai i Rules of Evidence Rule 403 balancing test analysis on the record regarding its decisions to admit CW’s brother’s testimony, the blood pool photographs, and the police interview video; and (2) whether Beaudet-Close invoked his right to remain silent when he declined to participate in the altercation reenactment.