Court denies sex offender’s bid to exclude child’s testimony

Superior Court Associate Judge Teresa Kim-Tenorio has denied a sex offender’s motion to prevent a child from testifying in a case that accuses him of sexually abusing her in 2018.

Benjamin M. Hattori, 42, had sought to block the testimony of the victim in the alleged sexual abuse of a minor case that took place in November 2018 but Kim-Tenorio denied Hattori’s motion, saying it failed to meet the burden of showing evidence that the child’s statements were the product of suggestive or coercive interview techniques.

“The court finds that [Hattori] has failed to identify any specific example of unduly suggestive or improper interview techniques in the government’s interviews. Furthermore, at 14, the child witness’ age weighs heavily against [Hattori’s] motion,” the order stated.

Although a child’s memory is peculiarly susceptible to suggestibility, Kim-Tenorio said that that concern becomes less relevant as the witness’ age increases.

Hattori, through assistant public defender Stephanie Boutsicaris, argued that the 14-year-old girl’s testimony should be excluded as irrelevant and unreliable because of the child’s age and the alleged suggestive and coercive interview techniques that were used to obtain her statements.

“A.P.’s story evolved over the course of three interviews with government officials, none of which were recorded or otherwise adequately documented. The government officials who conducted the interviews were either inexperienced or lacked qualifications in the area of child interview techniques. Both the lack of documentation and lack of qualified experts in the area of child interview techniques demonstrate that the interviews with A.P. were unduly suggestive,” Boutsicaris argued.

Boutsicaris added that having the child’s family members present during the interviews, conducting the interviews in a non-neutral location, using a questioner who is an authority figure, and repetitively interviewing the child when she was tired are all suggestive interview techniques that had an undue influence on the child’s testimony.

Assistant attorney general Samantha Vickery denied this in the Commonwealth’s opposition to Hattori’s motion. In addition, the Commonwealth argues that the child is competent to testify because a child’s competency is not even in question if the child is above the age of 14 when testifying.

“The government’s interviews with A.P. were either memorialized in a report, or transcribed and the defendant has already received copies. A.P.’s testimonies were consistent throughout interviews, and the defendant has not indicated any improper or suggestive interview techniques and has failed to identify any specific questions asked as being unduly suggestive or improper,” Vickery argued.

Kim-Tenorio also denied Hattori’s motion dismiss count II violation of sex offender registry and motion to compel discovery of witness statements to the victim’s advocate, but granted Hattori’s motion to compel discovery of offender records.