State v. Paleka

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000620
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 29-APR-2025 09:17 AM Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAMIEN K. PALEKA, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaiʻi (State) appeals

from the "Findings of Fact [(FOFs)], Conclusions of Law

[(COLs)], and Order Granting State's Motion to Reconsider the

Suppression of Statements of Counts Four Through Nine" (Order),

filed on September 20, 2022, by the Circuit Court of the Second

Circuit (circuit court).1

On November 16, 2020, the State charged Defendant-

Appellee Damien K. Paleka (Paleka) by Indictment with nine

1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

counts of Sexual Assault. Counts One through Three related to

one complaining witness for an incident that occurred on or

about August 14, 2020, and Counts Four through Nine related to a

second complaining witness, who was fourteen to sixteen years

old at the time, that occurred between January 1, 2020 and

March 3, 2020.

Prior to trial, Paleka filed "Defendant's Motion to

Suppress Statements" (Motion to Suppress), seeking to suppress

statements he made to Maui Police Department (MPD) Detective

Kyle Bishaw-Juario (Detective Bishaw-Juario) on March 14, 2020,

while under arrest regarding the charged sexual assaults related

to the second complaining witness who was fourteen to sixteen

years old. After hearings on the voluntariness of Paleka's

statements,2 and the Motion to Suppress Paleka's March 14, 2020

statements, the circuit court suppressed Paleka's March 14, 2020

statements. The circuit court concluded that the police lacked

probable cause to arrest Paleka and, thus, the "resulting

custodial interrogation was illegal."

The circuit court found that since "there was no

evidence presented by the State to support the arrest on

March 14, 2020, everything thereafter [was] fruit of the

2 The circuit court found that Paleka's statements were properly informed, and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given with regard to Counts One through Three. The parties proceeded to a jury trial on Counts One through Three, and Paleka was convicted of one count of Sexual Assault in the Second Degree. Paleka withdrew his appeal of that conviction.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

poisonous tree and the case shall be dismissed." The circuit

court then dismissed Counts Four through Nine with prejudice.

On appeal, the State contends that the circuit court

abused its discretion by dismissing Counts Four through Nine

with prejudice. The State argues that: (1) the circuit court

infringed "on the State's determination on how to prepare its

cases for trial"; (2) the suppression order would not affect the

evidence obtained prior to March 14, 2020; (3) "the suppression

remedy requested by Paleka was sufficient to ensure fairness to

the defendant, while a dismissal with prejudice that no party

requested undercuts the State's interest in prosecuting criminal

conduct"; and (4) even assuming dismissal was warranted,

dismissal with prejudice was "an extreme sanction."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we vacate the circuit court's Order as follows.

"Trial courts have the power to dismiss sua sponte an

indictment with prejudice and over the objection of the

prosecuting attorney within the bounds of duly exercised

discretion." State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai‘i 33, 37, 889 P.2d 1092,

1096 (App. 1995) (quoting State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 55, 647

P.2d 705, 711-12 (1982)) (cleaned up). "The parameters within

which this discretion is properly exercised requires a balancing

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the interest of the state against fundamental fairness to a

defendant with the added ingredient of the orderly functioning

of the court system." Id. (cleaned up). This court also

instructed that "in the future, trial courts exercising this

power should issue written factual findings setting forth their

reasons for dismissal with prejudice so that a reviewing court

may accurately assess whether the trial court duly exercised its

discretion." Id. at 38, 889 P.2d at 1097 (cleaned up).

We first emphasize that the parties do not cite, and

we could not find, where in the record there was a motion to

dismiss Counts Four through Nine. Thus, it appears the

dismissal was sua sponte.

Next, a review of the voluntariness and suppression

hearing transcripts show that the State had acquired some

evidence prior to Paleka's March 14, 2020 statement made while

under arrest. Detective Bishaw-Juario testified that, prior to

Paleka's March 14, 2020 statement, Detective Bishaw-Juario had

statements from the complaining witness and Paleka's

grandfather, the dates of the Plan B contraceptive pickups

confirmed by Molokai General Hospital, and beddings collected

from Paleka's bedroom. The circuit court, however, made no

findings explaining how the evidence obtained prior to Paleka's

March 14, 2020 statement would be fruit of the poisonous tree or

why this evidence was insufficient to proceed on Counts Four

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

through Nine. See State v. Willis, 154 Hawaiʻi 160, 173, 548

P.3d 714, 727 (App. 2024) ("The testimony of one percipient

witness can provide sufficient evidence to support a

conviction.") (quoting State v. Pulse, 83 Hawaiʻi 229, 244,

925 P.2d 797, 812 (1996)).

Finally, nothing in the circuit court's FOFs and COLs

show it balanced the State's interest against fairness to Paleka

and why the requested suppression of Paleka's March 14, 2020

statement was an insufficient remedy.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the part of the

circuit court's Order that dismissed Counts Four through Nine

with prejudice, and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 29, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen County of Maui, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Jacob G. Delaplane, Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellee.