## Facts

- Steven Canady was charged with abuse of a family or household member based on allegations that he struck the complainant in the face and head area.
- Police responded to a domestic disturbance call and found the complainant with significant facial injuries; an ambulance took her to the hospital, and photographs of her injuries were admitted at trial.
- At a bench trial, the complainant testified she could not remember who injured her and could not remember talking with police about her injuries.
- Over a hearsay objection, a police officer testified to what the complainant said at the hospital, including that she stopped speaking because she feared that if Canady saw her talking to the officer “he would come in and beat her up.”
- The officer’s account of the complainant’s statements supplied the only direct evidence linking Canady to the assault.
- The trial court found Canady guilty, entered judgment, and Canady appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complainant’s asserted lack of memory at trial made her prior statements “inconsistent” and thus admissible as substantive evidence under HRE Rule 802.1(1).
2. Whether the complainant’s statements were admissible under HRE Rule 803(3) as evidence of her then-existing state of mind.
3. Whether admitting the officer’s testimony about the complainant’s out-of-court statements, when she claimed memory loss, violated the right of confrontation.
4. Whether any evidentiary error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the complainant’s prior statements were not properly admitted as prior inconsistent statements under HRE Rule 802.1(1) based solely on her claimed lack of memory at trial.
- The court held the state-of-mind exception did not permit the State to use the complainant’s fear statement as substantive proof that Canady committed the assault.
- The court concluded the erroneous admission of the officer’s hearsay testimony was prejudicial and not harmless because it was central to proving identity and guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRE Rule 802.1(1), a witness’s professed lack of memory does not automatically render a prior statement “inconsistent” and admissible as substantive evidence; the Hawaiʻi rule is more limited than the federal framework applied in analogous federal cases.
- HRE Rule 803(3) permits evidence of a declarant’s then-existing emotional condition (such as fear), but it does not authorize using such statements as a substitute for proof of the underlying criminal act or the assailant’s identity.
- When improperly admitted hearsay provides the key linkage between the defendant and the charged conduct, the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and requires a new trial.

## Conclusion

Because the State relied on an officer’s repetition of the complainant’s out-of-court statements to supply the essential evidence of identity while the complainant claimed memory loss at trial, the appellate court held the statements were inadmissible under the asserted hearsay theories and vacated the conviction for a new trial.


State v. Canady, 80 Haw. 469, 911 P.2d 104 (Haw. Ct. App. 1996)