Sniffen v. State of Hawai'i Department of Public Safety

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-JUN-2023
07:53 AM
Dkt. 121 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

SAMUEL B. SNIFFIN and SETH E. CONKLIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE OF HAWAI#I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
MATTHEW MAZZOCCA, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee,
and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100
(CIVIL NO. 1CC131002943)

SAMUEL B. SNIFFIN and SETH E. CONKLIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MATTHEW MAZZOCCA, Defendant-Appellee,
and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100
(CIVIL NO. 1CC141001193)

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Samuel B. Sniffin and Seth E.
Conklin appeal from the Final Judgment in favor of Defendant/
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i Department of
Public Safety and Third-Party Defendant-Appellee and Defendant-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellee Matthew Mazzocca1 entered by the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit on February 28, 2019.2 For the reasons explained
below, we affirm.
Sniffin, Conklin, and Mazzocca were inmates at the
Hālawa Correctional Facility. They got into a fight. On
November 5, 2013, Sniffin and Conklin sued the State. They
claimed they were injured because of the State's negligence. The
State filed a third-party complaint against Mazzocca. The State
claimed that Mazzocca "struck [Sniffin and Conklin]
intentionally, maliciously and without warning to the State."
On May 16, 2014, Sniffin and Conklin sued Mazzocca.
They claimed they were injured when Mazzocca assaulted and
battered them.
The two lawsuits were consolidated by stipulation. A
jury-waived trial was held October 29, 2018, and November 13
and 15, 2018. The circuit court entered "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order" on November 19, 2018. The order
stated:

Pursuant to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, the Court hereby orders that judgment enter in favor of
Defendants State of Hawai#i, Department of Public Safety,
and Matthew Mazzocca, and against Plaintiffs Samuel Sniffin
and Seth Conklin.

The Final Judgment was entered on February 28, 2019.
This appeal followed.
Sniffin and Conklin contend that the circuit court
erred by: (1) concluding that Sniffin and Conklin "failed to show
that the State owed them a duty"; (2) holding that Sniffin and
Conklin "failed to provide evidence that the State of Hawai#i
breached any legal duty to protect them from the consequences of
their illegal activities at Halawa Correctional Facility or from
the consequences of stealing from another inmate"; and

1
Sniffin and Conklin do not argue error affecting the Final
Judgment in favor of Mazzocca.
2
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.

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

(3) excluding the deposition testimony of Adult Correctional
Officer (ACO) Kaipo Fiatoa at trial.
Sniffin and Conklin do not challenge any of the circuit
court's findings of fact, which are therefore binding on appeal,
Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai#i 450, 459,
40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002). The circuit court found that Sniffin,
Conklin, and Mazzocca were housed in Hālawa's medium security
quad 4 Module 2A. On the morning of November 5, 2011, Mazzocca
confronted Sniffin and Conklin in the day room about something
(prison tattoo ink) he felt Sniffin and Conklin stole from him.
Their conversation lasted 30 seconds to one minute. The
conversation got heated as obscenities were exchanged. Mazzocca
saw Sniffin and Conklin exchange looks, which led him to believe
they would not back down and were readying to attack him while he
was outnumbered. Sniffin's body language and hand gestures
indicated that he was squaring up to fight. When Mazzocca saw
Sniffin clench his fist, Mazzocca swung at Sniffin first.
Sniffin fell to the ground from Mazzocca's first punch and did
not move as Mazzocca and Conklin continued to fight. Conklin was
subsequently subdued.
(1) Sniffin and Conklin challenge the first sentence
of Conclusion of Law (COL) no. 1:

1. With respect to the Plaintiffs' negligence claim,
Plaintiffs have failed to show that the State owed
them a duty. . . .

The existence of a duty is entirely a question of law.
Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dep't of Educ., 100 Hawai#i 34, 57,
58 P.3d 545, 568 (2002). We review questions of law de novo
under the right/wrong standard. Id.
"As a general matter, a person does not have a duty to
act affirmatively to protect another person from harm by a third
person." Doe Parents, 100 Hawai#i at 71, 58 P.3d at 582 (cleaned
up). However, if there is a "special relationship" between the
defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant owes the plaintiff a

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

duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent the
third person from causing physical harm to the plaintiff. Id.
The relationship between the State and an incarcerated person is
such a "special relationship."

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A provides in
relevant part that "[o]ne who is required by law to take or
who voluntarily takes the custody of another under
circumstances such as to deprive the other of his [or her]
normal opportunities for protection is under a . . . duty to
the other" "to take reasonable action . . . to protect them
against unreasonable risk of physical harm[.]"

Id. at 71 n.40, 58 P.3d at 582 n.40.
The first sentence of COL no. 1 is wrong. But the
error is not dispositive; the circuit court's other findings,
conclusions, and mixed findings and conclusions — which are not
erroneous — support the Final Judgment.
(2) Sniffin and Conklin challenge the second sentence
of COL no. 1, which is actually a finding of fact:

The Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the
State of Hawai#i breached any legal duty to protect
them from the consequences of their illegal activities
at Halawa Correctional Facility or from the
consequences of stealing from another inmate.

Whether or not the defendant breached a legal duty by
failing to exercise reasonable care is a question of fact. Doe
Parents, 100 Hawai#i at 57–58, 58 P.3d at 568–69. The circuit
court found,3 and Sniffin and Conklin do not challenge, that
Mazzocca's prison file contained no indication of institutional
violence or prior assaultive behavior. Before the fight, neither
Sniffin nor Conklin told the State they were at risk of physical
harm from Mazzocca because they had stolen from him. On the
morning of November 5, 2011, Mazzocca did not tell the State that
Sniffin or Conklin had stolen from him. The trial court found

3
Some of what the circuit court labeled conclusions of law were
actually findings of fact. Whether a determination is a finding of fact or a
conclusion of law is a question of law that is freely reviewable by a
reviewing court. Kilauea Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw. App.
227, 229, 751 P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988).

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

that Mazzocca credibly testified that he didn't "snitch" to ACO
Fiatoa. We will not disturb credibility determinations.
Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc., 97 Hawai#i 86, 92, 34 P.3d
16, 22 (2001).
The State was never placed on notice, before the fight,
of a specific threat Mazzocca posed to Sniffin or Conklin, and
circumstances did not reasonably suggest that a specific harm was
likely to arise. Gary Kaplan, Corrections Supervisor with the
Hawai#i Department of Public Safety, testified that the
altercation between Sniffin, Conklin, and Mazzocca was sudden and
unexpected, and there was insufficient time for ACOs to respond.
The circuit court found that "It was impossible for ACOs to react
to something they knew nothing about[.]"
The circuit court entered the following conclusions of
law, which are actually mixed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, that are not challenged by Sniffin or Conklin:

4. The Court, having taken into account the circumstances
of this case, finds that the Plaintiffs could not
reasonably expect protection from the State for the
consequences of their illegal enterprise of making
tattoo ink or for stealing from Mazzocca. Plaintiffs
did not warn the State that Mazzocca might harm them;
they kept their illegal activity to themselves.

5. There is no evidence that any change in the policies
or practices at [Hālawa] could have prevented the
intentional wrongful conduct by Plaintiffs in the
production of tattoo ink or that a change in
[Hālawa]'s policies or practices would have reduced
Plaintiffs' risk of harm from the consequences of
stealing from another inmate and subsequently lying to
that inmate.

6. The Court also finds that there is no evidence that
the State was negligent in the security classification
and/or housing determinations that resulted in
Sniffin, Conklin and Mazzocca being housed in the same
module during the time preceding the fight and on the
day of the fight.
. . . .

10. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery against
the State[.]

Conclusions of law that are supported by the trial
court's findings of fact and reflect an application of the
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

correct rule of law will not be overturned. Est. of Klink ex
rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523
(2007). In Doe Parents, the supreme court referred to
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A and noted:

The commentary to this section remarks that the duty that a
"special relationship" imposes upon a defendant "is only one
to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. The
defendant is not liable where he [or she] neither knows nor
should know of the unreasonable risk[.]" Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 314A Comment e, at 120 (1965).
Correlatively, this court has noted that even if the
defendant and the plaintiff share a "special relationship,"
the defendant will not become liable to the plaintiff for an
injury that a third person inflicts upon the plaintiff
unless the harm was reasonably foreseeable. See, e.g., Lee,
83 Hawai#i at 160, 925 P.2d at 330.

100 Hawai#i at 71 n.40, 58 P.3d at 582 n.40.
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court's
mixed finding and conclusion that the State did not breach a
legal duty owed to Sniffin or Conklin is neither clearly
erroneous nor wrong.
(3) Sniffin and Conklin contend that the circuit court
erred by excluding ACO Fiatoa's "deposition testimony" at trial.
We initially note that the opening brief's statement of the
points of error does not comply with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 28(b)(4)(A).
According to the opening brief's argument section and
the transcript of proceedings it cites, the issue arose when
Sniffin and Conklin offered their Exhibit 21 into evidence.
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 is ACO Fiatoa's deposition transcript.
Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 32(a)(1) provides that
"[a]ny deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of
contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a
witness, or for any other purpose permitted by the Hawai#i Rules
of Evidence."
At trial, after ACO Fiatoa testified to a lack of
memory, Sniffin used ACO Fiatoa's deposition to have ACO Fiatoa

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

affirm his prior testimony on a number of facts.4 Sniffin
questioned ACO Fiatoa: "Let me ask you -- but would you lie at
your deposition?" ACO Fiatoa answered: "No." Sniffin again
asked: "But you wouldn't lie at a deposition, would you?" ACO
Fiatoa again answered: "No." Sniffin asked a third time:

Q. Okay. In fact, wouldn't you agree, Mr. Fiatoa,
that all the testimony that you -- all the -- all the
testimony you gave at your deposition here was based upon
what you remembered at the time in March 9, 2017, correct?
A. Yeah.

Q. And that it was the truth?
A. It was what I remembered, yes.

Q. Yes. But it was the truth that you testified
to?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. You would not, as you testified earlier,
you would not lie at a deposition, correct?
A. No.

Finally, Sniffin asked:

Q. Okay. Okay. Even though you don't remember
what you said in March 9, 2017, you would agree that the
statement you gave here was truthful and correct; correct?

A. How can I say correct if I can't really
remember?

Q. Yes. Well, you wouldn't lie at a deposition?
A. Then I guess, yeah.

Sniffin then moved the entire deposition transcript —
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21 — into evidence. Sniffin correctly argues
that the circuit court erroneously believed that because ACO
Fiatoa was present at trial, he was not "unavailable" under
Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 804(a)(3) after he testified

4
During trial, Sniffin read questions and answers from ACO Fiatoa's
deposition transcript to ACO Fiatoa, ostensibly to refresh his recollection.
ACO Fiatoa's recollection was generally not refreshed. However, ACO Fiatoa
also acknowledged on the record that the deposition transcript accurately
reflected his answers to the questions that were asked during the deposition.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to a lack of memory. However, the basis for the circuit court's
ruling actually was:

You've been using [the deposition transcript] throughout the
examination of Mr. Fiatoa for whatever purposes you saw fit
and the court has allowed that, but the court will not admit
the deposition transcript.

Portions of ACO Fiatoa's former testimony were already
in evidence through his examination at trial. See HRE Rule
804(b)(1). The actual deposition transcript, to the extent it
contained questions and answers already in evidence, was a
"needless presentation of cumulative evidence." HRE Rule 403.
Sniffin failed to establish how the remainder of the transcript
was relevant. See HRE Rule 402. We conclude that the circuit
court did not err by refusing to admit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21
into evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the Final Judgment entered
by the circuit court on February 28, 2019, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 30, 2023.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Joseph P.H. Ahuna, Jr., Presiding Judge
David K. Ahuna,
for Plaintiffs-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
Caron M. Inagaki,
Kathy K. Higham, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
Department of the Attorney
General, State of Hawai#i,
for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Hawai#i Department
of Public Safety.

Richard D. Gronna,
for Third-Party
Defendant-Appellee
and Defendant-Appellee
Matthew Mazzocca.

8