## Facts

- The State charged Alik Luke with, among other offenses, attempted first-degree burglary (Yamamoto home), first-degree burglary (Shimoda home), and unauthorized possession of confidential personal information.
- Both residences had security camera systems that recorded the relevant events.
- For the Yamamoto incident, the homeowner installed and operated the system, received a motion alert, viewed the live feed, confronted the intruder, and testified that the recording accurately depicted what he observed; the trial court admitted this video.
- For the Shimoda incident, the system was professionally installed and maintained; the homeowner was not present during the burglary.
- The Shimoda homeowner testified the system was working properly, he later viewed the footage with police at his home, the recording showed an individual entering and exiting carrying his suitcase, and the offered exhibit was the same footage; the video contained time and date stamps.
- A representative of the security company downloaded the relevant Shimoda footage and provided a copy to police.
- The trial court excluded the Shimoda video for lack of foundation, emphasizing the homeowner did not install the system and did not witness the burglary.
- During trial, the court declared a mistrial after the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument violated a prior ruling limiting use of the defendant’s statements.
- After the mistrial, the trial court dismissed all counts with prejudice under the *Moriwake* framework, relying heavily on its view that the State could not prove the case without the excluded Shimoda video.
- The State appealed the exclusion of the Shimoda video and the dismissal with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the Shimoda surveillance video for lack of authentication, including under the “silent witness” theory.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the charges with prejudice under *State v. Moriwake* based materially on the evidentiary ruling.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the trial court erred in excluding the Shimoda surveillance video; the State presented sufficient evidence to authenticate it as a reliable “silent witness.”
- The appellate court held the dismissal with prejudice was improper because it relied heavily on the erroneous conclusion that the Shimoda video was inadmissible and thus distorted the *Moriwake* analysis.
- The appellate court vacated the order dismissing the charges with prejudice and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Authentication requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is; video may be authenticated through circumstantial proof of reliability.
- Under the silent-witness theory, a video recording may be admitted as substantive evidence without testimony from an eyewitness to the recorded events if the proponent shows the recording process was reliable and the offered copy is accurate and unaltered.
- A sponsoring witness need not have installed the surveillance system or personally observed the recorded events to authenticate a surveillance video; testimony about proper functioning, how the video was obtained, and confirmation that the exhibit matches what was originally viewed can suffice.
- Dismissal with prejudice after a mistrial is a limited discretionary remedy guided by *Moriwake* factors; a dismissal that rests on a legally erroneous view of admissible evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ruled that professionally installed home surveillance footage was adequately authenticated under the silent-witness theory despite the homeowner’s lack of firsthand observation, and it vacated a post-mistrial dismissal with prejudice because the trial court’s *Moriwake* balancing depended on an incorrect evidentiary exclusion.


State v. Luke, 147 Haw. 126, 464 P.3d 914 (Haw. Ct. App. 2020)