State v. Spies

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-OCT-2024
08:27 AM
Dkt. 82 ORD

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JONATHAN P. SPIES, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai‘i's (State) October 11, 2024 "Motion for Reconsideration"
(Motion) and the record and files herein, it appears that:
(1) The State argues that this court's October 3, 2024
memorandum opinion (Opinion) "misapplied controlling case law"
of State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai‘i 382, 910 P.2d 695 (1996) and
State v. Long, 98 Hawai‘i 348, 48 P.3d 595 (2002), which the
State contends do not require "the expert be trained in
accordance with any manufacturer's requirements"; and the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Opinion "overlooked" the "controlling" authority of State v.
Texeira, 147 Hawai‘i 513, 465 P.3d 960 (2020). 1
(2) These arguments were not presented in the State's
answering brief, which solely contended that Defendant-Appellant
Jonathan P. Spies (Spies) waived his challenge on the first
point of error——a contention we rejected as inaccurate in
footnote 11 of the Opinion. "Reconsideration is not a device to
relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that
could and should have been brought during the earlier
proceeding." Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai‘i 505, 513, 993 P.2d
539, 547 (2000) (citations omitted).
(3) In any event, Texeira is inapposite because that
appellant challenged a different aspect of the required
foundation for admissibility of a scientific test result, i.e.
whether "the instruments used to conduct the DNA analyses were
operated in compliance with the manufacturer's recommendations"
(device operation challenge). 147 Hawai‘i at 516, 465 P.3d at
963 (emphasis added). 2 The Texeira court analyzed the device
operation challenge under the third element of the three-part
foundation under Long, 98 Hawai‘i at 355, 48 P.3d at 602, of
"whether the measuring instrument was in proper working order at
the time it was used." 3 Texeira, 147 Hawai‘i at 531-32, 465 P.3d

1 The State acknowledges in the declaration attached to its Motion
that it failed to cite the 2020 Texeira case in its 2024 answering brief.

2 We note that the Texeira appellant did raise a challenge in the
circuit court similar to Spies's, that "the State could not lay a proper
foundation establishing that the equipment used to conduct the analyses
produced accurate results, unless the user was trained to operate it in the
manner recommended by the machine's manufacturer." Texeira, 147 Hawai‘i at
519, 465 P.3d at 966. It appears this challenge was not raised on appeal,
and it was not addressed by the supreme court.

3 We cited the identical three-part foundation from State v. Subia,
139 Hawai‘i 62, 66, 383 P.3d 1200, 1204 (2016) (cleaned up): "A proper
foundation for introducing a test result would necessarily include expert
testimony regarding: (1) the qualifications of the expert; (2) whether the

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

at 978-79. The Texeira court concluded that, even "without a
showing that the DNA tests were conducted in accordance with
manufacturer specifications[,]" id. at 529, 465 P.3d at 976
(capitalization altered), the State proved "that the machines
used to analyze the DNA evidence in this case were in proper
working order at the time they were used," and thus laid
sufficient foundation for the admission of the DNA test results.
Id. at 532, 465 P.3d at 979. 4
(4) In this appeal, Spies challenged whether the
foundation for the expert's qualification was deficient where
the record did not reflect that her training to operate the
devices used to analyze the substance was in accordance with
device manufacturer recommendations (operator training
challenge). Spies's operator training challenge is distinct
from Texeira's device operation challenge, and it involves the
first element of the three-part Subia/Long foundation regarding
"the qualifications of the expert[.]" See n.3 supra. We
concluded that "the State did not lay sufficient foundation to
show [the expert]'s qualifications to operate the three devices
used to determine the identification and weight of the recovered
substance[,]" and thus the expert's testimony regarding the
identity and weight of the substance was not properly admitted.
Opinion at *5.

expert employed valid techniques to obtain the test result; and (3) whether
the measuring instrument is in proper working order." (Subia/Long
foundation) See Opinion at *4.

4 Based on the robust foundation laid in Texeira, the supreme court
also concluded that all three elements of the Subia/Long foundation were met.
See 147 Hawai‘i at 533, 465 P.3d at 980 ("The State laid a proper foundation
to the introduction of this evidence [(DNA analysis)] by proving that [the
expert] was properly qualified, the techniques Sorenson [(Sorenson Forensics,
a private DNA testing lab)] used were valid, and the machines were in proper
working order at the time they were used.").

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

For these reasons, this court did not overlook or
misapprehend any point of law or fact when it entered the
memorandum opinion. See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 40(b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, October 30, 2024.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

4