Granillo v. State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-JUN-2025
08:31 AM
Dkt. 95 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DANIEL R. GRANILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2PR191000004)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

On January 24, 1991, Daniel R. Granillo was convicted
of Kidnapping, two counts of Sexual Assault in the First Degree,
and Attempted Sexual Assault in the First Degree. On January 24,
2019, Granillo petitioned the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit
to vacate his conviction under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure
(HRPP) Rule 40. The court denied the petition after a hearing.1
Granillo appeals from the December 16, 2022 Judgment. We affirm,
but for reasons other than those stated by the Circuit Court.
A grand jury indicted Granillo on June 23, 1989. At
trial the complaining witness (CW) testified she was in a parking
lot on the evening of May 26, 1989, waiting for a friend. A
light-colored car pulled up. Granillo got out, hit her, dragged
her into the car, and drove to a beach. He pulled out a knife
and held it to CW's neck and chest. He said he'd kill her if she

1
The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

didn't stop crying. He sexually assaulted her twice and
threatened to have anal sex with her. She got her pants up,
jumped out of the car, hid in the bushes, and waited until
Granillo left.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agent
Wayne Oakes also testified. The trial court qualified Oakes as
an expert witness in hair and fiber analysis. Oakes testified he
examined a strand of hair recovered from Granillo's car. It was
broken at the root end, indicating it had been forcibly removed.
He compared it with a hair from CW's head. "[T]hey were
microscopically the same." Oakes concluded that the hair
recovered from Granillo's car had come from CW.
Oakes examined CW's panties. He recovered textile
fibers from the panties. He compared them to fibers from the
seat cover in Granillo's car. "[T]hey were microscopically
identical; in other words, the foreign fibers on [CW]'s panties
were like the fibers composing the seat cover from [Granillo]'s
vehicle."
Oakes examined CW's pants. He found "numerous marine
acrylic fibers which were consistent with coming from the seat
cover of [Granillo]'s vehicle." He also found "brown and gray
carpet fibers" that "were microscopically the same" as "known
carpet fibers from the front left floor portion of [Granillo]'s
vehicle[.]" He concluded that the carpet fibers found on CW's
pants "were consistent with coming from the floor of [Granillo]'s
vehicle." He agreed that his findings were "consistent with the
allegation that [CW] was in the car with her pants off and her
panties exposed."
A jury found Granillo guilty as charged. On
January 24, 1991, he was sentenced to consecutive 20-year terms
of imprisonment. He appealed. We affirmed. State v. Granillo,
No. 15178, 1992 WL 66217 (Haw. App. Mar. 16, 1992).
Over twenty-six years later, by Letter dated October 2,
2017, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) informed the
Maui County Prosecuting Attorney it had

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

determined that the microscopic hair comparison analysis
testimony or laboratory report presented in this case
included statements that exceeded the limits of science in
one or more of the following ways and were, therefore,
invalid: . . . (2) the examiner assigned to the positive
association a statistical weight or probability or provided
a likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a
particular source[.]

The Prosecuting Attorney's office sent the DOJ Letter
to Granillo. On January 24, 2019, Granillo petitioned the
circuit court to vacate his conviction under HRPP Rule 40. A
hearing was held on October 21, 2022. On December 16, 2022, the
court entered an order denying Granillo's petition, and the
Judgment. This appeal followed.
Granillo states two points of error: (1) "The circuit
court erred in applying the wrong standard to find harmless error
in the admission of the bogus hair and fiber evidence in
Granillo's 1990 trial"; and (2) "The circuit court erred in
making weight and credibility determinations based upon the
transcript of Granillo's 1990 trial where the HRPP Rule 40 judge
was not the 1990 trial judge and the trial was a jury trial."
HRPP Rule 40 (eff. 2006) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Proceedings and grounds. . . .

(1) FROM JUDGMENT. At any time but not prior to
final judgment, any person may seek relief under the
procedure set forth in this rule from the judgment of
conviction, on the following grounds:

. . . .
(iv) that there is newly discovered evidence[.]

The Hawai#i Supreme Court

has adopted a four-part test to decide if newly discovered
evidence warrants a new trial: (1) the evidence has been
discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have
been discovered before or at trial through the exercise of
due diligence; (3) the evidence is material to the issues
and not cumulative or offered solely for purposes of
impeachment; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature as
would probably change the result of a later trial.

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

Haw. Police Dep't v. Kubota, 155 Hawai#i 136, 145, 557 P.3d 865,
874 (2024) (quoting State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 267–68, 588
P.2d 438, 445 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Raines v.
State, 79 Hawai#i 219, 900 P.2d 1286 (1995), and overruled on
other grounds by State v. Eberly, 107 Hawai#i 239, 112 P.3d 725
(2005)).
Granillo argues that the Circuit Court applied "the
wrong standard." The Circuit Court applied the harmless error
standard. It should have applied the McNulty test because
Granillo's petition was based on newly discovered evidence. 60
Haw. at 267-68, 588 P.2d at 445.
Granillo satisfied the first two parts of the McNulty
test. The DOJ Letter evidenced that Oakes's opinion about the
single hair recovered from Granillo's car being CW's "exceeded
the limits of science" and was "invalid." The Circuit Court
stated, "that determination was made decades after the trial and
subsequent appeal."
Under part three of the McNulty test, the new evidence
was material to whether CW had been in Granillo's car. But
Oakes's hair opinion was cumulative of his fiber opinions.
Granillo misrepresents the substance of the DOJ Letter; his brief
refers to "bogus and inadmissible hair and fiber evidence[.]"
(Emphasis added.) Nothing in the DOJ Letter, or the record,
impeaches Oakes's microscopic fiber analysis or opinions, which
tended to show that CW was in Granillo's car with her pants off
and her panties touching the seat cover. The new evidence does
not satisfy the third part of the McNulty test. We need not
address the fourth part.
Granillo's second point of error lacks merit. The
Circuit Court did not reweigh the trial evidence or make
credibility determinations. It reviewed and summarized the trial
evidence to analyze whether admission of Oakes's hair opinion was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Our decision today does not
apply the harmless error standard.

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

The Circuit Court's December 16, 2022 Judgment is
affirmed, but for reasons other than those stated in the Circuit
Court's order denying Granillo's HRPP Rule 40 petition.
Granillo's May 12, 2025 motion for retention of oral argument is
denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 27, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Earle A. Partington, Acting Chief Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Gerald K. Enriques, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Respondent-Appellee. Associate Judge

5