## Facts

- A restaurant cashier was robbed at gunpoint late at night; the robber demanded money from the register and fled with about $300.
- Shortly after the robbery, the cashier described the robber to police.
- About a week later, a Honolulu Police Department artist created a composite sketch based on the cashier’s description.
- Roughly a month after the crime, the cashier selected the defendant’s photograph from an array of about 25–30 photos.
- The cashier later identified the defendant at a preliminary hearing and again identified him in court at trial.
- The defendant presented an alibi, testifying he was at a nightclub at the time of the robbery, supported by witnesses addressing his appearance and whereabouts.
- The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree robbery by threat of force.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give the defendant’s requested alibi instruction in full.
2. Whether a police composite sketch based on an eyewitness description is inadmissible hearsay, and if so, whether it is admissible as a prior identification when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
3. Whether the composite sketch was improperly admitted as “corroborative” evidence when the eyewitness had not been impeached.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the conviction.
- The trial court’s omission of the final paragraph of the requested alibi instruction was not reversible error because the instructions as a whole adequately conveyed the presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the duty to acquit if reasonable doubt existed.
- The composite sketch was hearsay, but it was admissible under the prior-identification exception because the eyewitness testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.
- The sketch was admissible as substantive evidence of identity, not limited to rehabilitating or corroborating an impeached witness.

## Legal Principles

- A composite sketch created from a witness’s description is an out-of-court statement and is hearsay.
- Under Hawaii’s prior-identification rule, a statement of identification made after perceiving a person is admissible when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
- A qualifying prior identification may be admitted in the prosecution’s case-in-chief as substantive proof of identity; impeachment of the identifying witness is not a prerequisite.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; omission of requested language is not reversible error if the charge adequately states the State’s burden and the reasonable-doubt standard as applied to identity and alibi evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the robbery conviction, holding that the jury instructions sufficiently addressed the alibi defense and that a police composite sketch based on the victim’s description, though hearsay, is admissible as a prior identification and may be considered substantive evidence of identity when the eyewitness testifies and is available for cross-examination.


State v. Motta, 66 Haw. 89, 657 P.2d 1019 (Haw. 1983)