A detective’s invitation to a suspect to tell his side of the story without first warning him of his right to remain silent has resulted in a sharply divided Hawaii Supreme Court ruling overturning the man’s attempted-manslaughter conviction.

In a 3-2 decision, the court ordered a new trial for Pulumataala Eli, who was accused of hitting his 7-month-old daughter’s head four times and throwing her around in a minivan at Ala Moana Park in 2007. She suffered permanent brain damage.

The majority held that the statements Eli gave to police should not have been admitted during his 2009 trial.

Defense lawyers applauded the ruling, saying it strengthens the requirement that suspects be told of their rights before police obtain a statement from them.

City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro said he "strongly" disagrees with the court’s majority, but will abide by the decision.

It’s unclear how often police make unrecorded statements that encourage or invite arrestees to give their account before they are formally read their rights.

Kaneshiro, however, said he will notify police that because of the ruling, they should be "very careful" about how they phrase their questions and what they say to suspects prior to warning them of their rights.

Eli, 37, was originally charged with second-degree attempted murder for allegedly inflicting the injuries after an argument with the baby’s mother.

The mother, Sarah Fuller, said they were arguing over her intention to leave Eli and call off their wedding. She said Eli blamed the daughter.

The prosecution said the girl, age 2 at the time of the trial, could not walk or "put two words together."

Eli’s defense was that he never intended to kill his daughter.

The jury found Eli guilty of the lesser offense of attempted manslaughter, which normally carries a maximum 20-year term. But because of the age of the victim, his sentence was extended to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

The high court’s ruling, issued earlier this month, hinged on Miranda warnings, which the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1966 must be given to suspects in custody before their statements can be used against them in court.

The warnings include telling a suspect that he or she has a right to remain silent; that anything they say can be used against them in court; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed for them.

In Eli’s case, he was asked by a detective in an interview room if he wanted to give a statement to tell "his side of the story."

Eli agreed, then was read his rights. He then gave a taped statement admitting hitting his daughter and throwing her face-first onto the car seat twice.

But even though he was read his rights before he gave the statement, the Miranda warnings were essentially negated by his earlier agreement to give a statement, Associate Justice Simeon Acoba reasoned in the 31-page majority opinion. The warnings became "only a formality," Acoba said.

Acoba said that inviting arrestees to give their "side of the story" before the Miranda warnings violates defendants’ rights against self-incrimination under the state Constitution. The detective should have known the invitation was likely to prompt Eli to give an incriminating response, the associate justice said.

Associate justices Jim Duffy and Sabrina McKenna agreed with Acoba’s opinion.

In a 14-page dissent, Associate Justice Paula Nakayama said the detective’s invitation was only "preliminary." She said Eli was given his Miranda warnings, he waived those rights and then he gave the recorded statement.

Nakayama said the "totality of the circumstances" does not show that the invitation "impermissibly coerced" Eli into giving the statement.

In a separate dissent, Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald said even if the Miranda warnings should have been given to Eli earlier, his "confession" still should have been admitted at trial.

Both dissenting justices said they would have upheld the conviction.

State Public Defender Jack Tonaki said the ruling "preserves the effectiveness of the Miranda warning process."

He said arrestees are often scared, fearful about what would happen next and easily influenced by the officers.

"It is very tempting to tell someone, you probably want to tell your side of the story," Tonaki said. "The natural inclination of anyone is, ‘Yeah, I want a chance to tell my side.’"

"I think they finally firmed up Miranda rights here," said Eli’s lawyer, David Bettencourt. "There was a loophole that needed to be plugged."

Kaneshiro said he agreed with the dissents.

He said the Miranda rights must be given when police are trying to elicit incriminating statements from the suspect. All the detective did was ask Eli about telling his side of the story, but did not ask anything about the allegations, the prosecutor said.

"It had nothing to do with self-incrimination," Kaneshiro said. "It’s not a violation of Miranda by asking the question."

Kaneshiro said he did not know whether the Eli case is an aberration or whether police ask similar questions, but said he will send a memo to the police department about the decision.

The prosecutor said Eli will be retried even without his statements.

"It’s always more difficult without the statement, but it’s not impossible," he said.