Case Title: State v. Yokotsuji

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBhARY

** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

No. 25469

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT’

  

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee

aqaw4

yuvA

Vez Wa Sp WAT 9002

STANLEY TOSHIO YOKOTSUJI, Defendant-Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HPD Traffic Nos. 002174116; 002174118

(By: Moon, ¢.J., Levimons Hokayonas Reobe, and Duffy, 39.)
Defendant-Appeliant Stanley Toshio Yokotsusi
(Yokotsuji") appeals from the judgment of the OLstrict Court of
the First Circuit! ("district court”) entered October 8, 2002, a8
well as from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence filed

July 19, 2002, At trial, Yokotauji was found guilty of
operating a venicle under the influence of an intoxicant
("ovur1") in violation of Havai's Revised statutes ("HRS") §

2918-61 (Supp. 2001),? and of failure to wear seat belt in

‘The Honorable Leslie Hayashi presiced

HRS § 291E-61 (Supp. 2001), the version in effect at the tine of
Yokotsuji'e arrest, provided in pertinent part

(a) A person commits the offense of operating 2 vehicle under the
Intiuence of an dntoxicant if the person operates or assumes
factual physical control of 2 vehicle:

(2) nile under the influence of alcohol in an amount
sotficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or
lity to cere er the person and gusrd against casualty

 

 

(b) A person committing the offense of operating a vehicle onder

the influence ef an intoxicant shall be sentenced as follows

wuthout possibility of probation or evspensicn of sentence:
(continued...)
‘== NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

violation of HRS § 291-11.6 (Supp. 2000).”

 

fon appeal, Yokoteuji essentially argues that: (1) the
district court erred in denying his July 19, 2002 motion to
suppress evidence discovered immediately following a May 9%, 2002
traffic stop, as the police officer who stopped and arrested him
(Officer Rudolph Mitchell IIT of the Honolulu Police Department)
did not have the reasonable suspicion required to initiate the

traffic stop; (2) the district court clearly erred by finding

 

continued)

(2) For an offense that occurs within five years of @ pribr
Sonvietson for an offense under this section oF section,
2o1e-dial?

(&) Frompt suspension of License and privilege to
operate a vehicle for 2 period of one year with an
SEsolute prohibition from operating « vehicle during
the suspension period:

(8) Esther one of the following:

(4) Not less than tuo hundred forty hours of
Community service work: oF

(ii) Not less than five days but not sore than
fourteen days of inprisonment of which at least
ESrtyceight noure shall be served consecutivell
and

 

(Ci_A fine of not le:
31,500.

‘than $500 but not more than

 

> Rs § 291-11.6 (Supp. 2000), the version in effect at the tine of

Yokotsuji"s arrest, provided in pertinent part?
(0) Except ae otherwise provided by lax, no person:

(2) shail operste 6 motor vehicle upon any public highway
Unless the person is restrained by 8 seat belt assembly and
any passengers in the front or back seat of the mot
Wehicle are restrained by a seat belt assembly if between
the ages of four and fourteen, or are restrained pursuant to
section 291-11.5 if under the age of four(.)

2

 

 
** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

that Officer Mitchell was more credible than Yokotsuji for
purposes of both Yokotsuji’s motion to suppress and its ultimate
finding of guilt; and (3) no substantial evidence existed to
support his convictions.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follows:

(2) Officer Mitchell had the reasonable suspicion
necessary to perform a valid traffic stop of Yokotsuji. There is
substantial evidence ‘in the record that Mitchell pointed to
specific and articulable facts (his observation of Yokotsuji
croseing the intersection of Dillingham Boulevard and Kohou
Street at night in a well-lit area while Yokotsuji was not
wearing his seat belt) showing that Yokotsuji was violating
Hawaii's seat belt law, such that the traffic stop was warranted.
See State v. Bolosan, 78 Hawai'i 86, 92, 890 P.2d 673, 679
(1995). thus, the district court properly denied Yokotsujis
motion to suppress.

(2) Yokotsuji’s argument that “the trial court erred in

+ entering a finding of fact that Officer Mitchell was more
credible than [he was)” must fail because “it is well-settled

‘that an appellate court wil] not pass upon issues dependent upon

the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this
is the province of the trier of fact.” State v, Martinez, 101

Hawai'i 332, 340, 68 P.3d 606, 614 (2003) (emphasis added)
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets

omitted) (also stating that “[iJt is well-settled . . . . that

 
++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

the trier of fact may accept or reject any witness's testimony in

 

whole or in part(,1" see id. (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (brackets omitted). Because’ we vill
not re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses upon appeal, we
therefore decline to hold that the district court clearly erred
in finding Mitchell to be the more credible witness.

(3) Substantial evidence existed to support Yokotsuii’s
convictions. With respect to the HRS § 2918-61 OVUIT conviction,
given (2) that Yokotsuji had just returned from @ bar on the
night of the traffic stop, (b) Yokotsuji had been drinking at
that bar, (c) Mitchell's observation of a strong odor of an
“alcoholic type beverage” about Yokoteusi, (d) Mitchell's
observation that Yokotsuii had red, glassy, watery and bloodshot
eyes, (e) Mitchell's observation that Yokotsuji's speech was
“heavily slurred and munbled[,]” (£) Mitchell's observations of
Yokotsuji’'s fumbling for his insurance and registration papers,
and (g) Mitchell's testimony that Yokotsuji displayed multiple
“clues” of possible impairment in all phases of the administered
field sobriety test, we hold that, when viewing the evidence in
the strongest ight for the prosecution, a reasonable fact-finder
could rationally infer from the evidence that Yokoteuii operated
his vehicle “while under the influence of alcohol in an amount
sufficient to impair the person’s normal mental facilities or
ability to care for the person and guard against casualty.” See
State v. Eastman, €1 Hawas'i 131, 135, 913 P.2d 57, 61 (1996),
and HRS § 2916-61(2) (1) (Supp. 2001). As such, Yokotsuji’s ovurt

conviction is affirmed.
** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

Finally, as to Yokotsuji’s HRS $ 291-11.6 no seat belt
conviction, we hold that, when viewing the evidence in the
strongest Light for the prosecution, Mitcheli’s observations (of
Yokotsuji crossing the Dillingham/Kohou intersection while not
wearing @ seat belt) constituted credible evidence of sufficient
quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable
caution to find Yokotsuji guilty of failure to wear a seat belt
in violation of HRS § 291-11.6. See State v. Maldonado, 108
Hawaii 436, 442, 121 P.3d 901, 907 (2005); State v. Pulse, 83
Hawas's 229, 244, 925 P.24 797, 813 (2996) ("The testimony of one
percipient witness can provide sufficient evidence to support a
conviction.”). Thus, the district court’s no seat belt .
conviction is affirmed.

‘Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the district court’s
denial of Yokotsuji‘s motion to suppress is affirmed, and (2)
Yokotsuji’s HRS § 2916-61 OVUIT and HRS § 291-11.6 no seat belt
convictions are affirmed

DATED: Honolulu, Hawat'l, July 25, 2006.

Chenin
on the briefs:

Keith M. Kiuchi Slain

(of Kiuchi € Nakamoto)

for Defendant-Appellant d a

Stanley Toshio Yokotsuji

Daniel #. Shimizu,
deputy prosecuting attorney,

for Plaintiff-Appellee

State of Hawai'i Yarn €: Oneligs the