No. SCWC-23-0000376, Thursday, April 17, 2025, 10 a.m., State v. Zuffante

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLES ZUFFANTE, Petitoner/Defendant-Appellant.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Performing Arts Center
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
200 W. Kawili St.
Hilo, HI  96720

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant CHARLES ZUFFANTE:

     Georgette Anne Yaindl of the Law Office of Georgette A. Yaindl

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Frederick M. Macapinlac, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/25.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

     This case arises from a traffic stop in Kona, Hawaiʻi.  An officer conducted a pat down of Petitioner Charles Zuffante and found a packet of crystal methamphetamine in his pocket.  Police later found more methamphetamine in the vehicle.      

     Following Zuffante’s arrest, a Hawaiʻi Police Department officer questioned Zuffante at the police station.  At trial, the officer testified that Zuffante voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and made statements to him, including that Zuffante sells crystal methamphetamine. 

     A jury found Zuffante guilty of Attempted Promotion of a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §§ 712-1241(1)(b)(ii) and 705-500.  The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. 

     Zuffante appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that his statements to the officer were not voluntary.  He argued the Circuit Court erred by admitting the officer’s testimony, because Zuffante’s statement was not electronically recorded.  Zuffante asserted that, under the Hawaiʻi Constitution, Hawaiʻi should adopt the “Stephan Rule” from Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985), which requires under the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution that police record criminal interrogations conducted at a police station.  Zuffante argued that without the officer’s testimony about Zuffante’s statements, the State did not present substantial evidence to support his conviction.  Zuffante also claimed his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the officer’s testimony.  The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court. 

     Zuffante’s application for certiorari to this court was granted.  He argues the ICA gravely erred by (1) affirming the Circuit Court’s admission of the officer’s testimony; (2) finding there was substantial evidence to sustain Zuffante’s conviction; and (3) not addressing Zuffante’s ineffective assistance claim.  Zuffante argues the supreme court should overrule State v. Kekona, 77 Hawaiʻi 403 (1994), where the court directly rejected the “Stephan Rule,” and instead require that police record custodial interrogations.