 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wong2/22/2002
did not notify Stone that Frunzi was going to testify before the grand jury and Frunzi did not get Stone's permission to testify about their professional relationship. Frunzi testified without raising any privilege issue on behalf of his former client, Stone. At the State's urging, Frunzi explained his testimony to the grand jury:
[State]: Now, prior to asking you questions about Mr. Stone, do you recognize that there ordinarily would be a prohibition from you testifying about those kinds of matters? [Frunzi]: Yes. The rules of the Bar Association and the Code of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from divulging any confidential communications or proprietary information to a client -- about a client to anybody else, but there are certain exceptions. And one of the exceptions is that if a crime is committed or to be committed, there's what's called a crime fraud exception. [State]: Okay. And that's what you are basing your ability to testify on today. [Frunzi]: Yes Richard Wong, joined by Mari Wong and Jeffrey Stone, moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause and prosecutorial misconduct. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment without prejudice. The circuit court explained:
. . . this Court will respectfully grant the motions to --Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the indictment for the following reasons: One, the government used the privileged testimony of an attorney, Richard Frunzi, albeit at that time he was suspended in lieu of discipline, he was also incarcerated in federal custody pending sentencing, although that's not terribly relevant. And this privileged testimony did not meet the crime-fraud exception to the Hawaii Rules of Evidence. I think that's very clear. Neither Mr. Frunzi, nor the government, notified Mr. Stone or the Court that his attorney, Mr. Stone's attorney, Mr. Frunzi, would be testifying. Further, the government on its own did not seek Court review ahead of time as this Court believes is required by law. Secondly, the Court finds that the government, by attesting to the quality of the testimony, by referring to or allowing Mr. Frunzi to refer to it as under the crime-fraud exception before the grand jury who are lay persons from the general community, illegally bolstered Mr. Frunzi's testimony, thereby prejudicing the Defendants. Assuming arguendo . . . that there is no requirement to approach this Court as a supervising judge ahead of time, the Court finds, nevertheless, that Mr. Frunzi's testimony was, in fact, privileged and the crime-fraud exception did not apply.
The State appealed. Additional facts are set out below where necessary.
B. Appeal Number 23151, First Circuit Criminal Number 99-1502
The Office of the Attorney General secured an indictment against former Bishop Estate Trustee Henry Haalilio Peters (Peters) and Jeffrey R. Stone (Stone). The indictment's charges of theft in the first degree (Peters), commercial bribery (Stone), criminal conspiracy (Peters and Stone), accomplice to theft in the first degree (Stone), and perjury (Stone), arose out of the Kalele Kai transactions, set out above, and an allegation that Stone secured the sale of Peters' residential apartment for $192,500 more than its alleged value.
The indictment alleges, in sum, that Stone induced Peters to approve OKP's acquisition of the Kalele Kai project by convincing another person to pay more for Peters' apartment than it was worth, that Stone financed the purchase of the apartment through OKP, OKP accepted the deed to the apartment in lieu of repayment of the money borrowed to finance its purchase, and that Peters used the value of his apartment, including the alleged $192,500 excess, to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|