Case Title: State v. Hernandez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

  

no. 25032 «
1 SHE SUPREME cout OF THE stare or wawazg. «=
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee 3
OSELIO R. HERNANDEZ, Detendant-Appetiensl

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(REPORT No. G-99482H)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Defendant-appellant, Roselio R. Hernandez [hereinafter

“Hernandez”] appeals from the third circuit district court's!

 

ptember 30, 2002 judgment convicting him of the offenses of
failure to appear in anewer to a citation, in violation of

Hawai" Revised Statutes (hereinafter “HRS”] § 803-6(e) (1993),*
mandatory use of child passenger restraints, in violation of HRS

§ 291-11.5 (Supp. 2001),? and mandatory use of seatbelts, in

 

) the Honorable Jeffrey Chol presided.
HRS § 603-6(e) states as follows:

{e)__ I€ a person fails to appear in answer to the citation:
or Af there is reesonable cause to believe that the person will
het appear, 2 warrant for the person's arrest may De issued.
Wilful failure to appear in answer to the citation may be punished
by a fine of fot more chan $100 or imprisonment of not more than
30 days or both.

 

 

2 HRS § 291-11.5 provides, in pertinent part, the following

§291-11.5 child passenger restraints. (2) Except as
otherwise provided in this section, no person operating » motor
venicle ona public highway in the State shall transport a child
Under four years of age unless the person operating the motor
Venicle enstres that the child le properly restrained in a child
passenger restraint ayster approved by the United States
Bepartaent of Transportation at the tine of its manufacture

 

ants
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
violation of HRS § 291-11.6 (Supp. 2001) -

 

The district court
sentenced Hernandez to five days incarceration and imposed a fine
of five-hundred and forty-five dollars. On appeal, Hernandez
asserts the following three points of error: (1) there was
insufficient evidence to support Hernandez’s conviction of
failure to appear where his failure to appear was not “wilful”?
(2) there was insufficient evidence to support Hernandez’s
conviction of mandatory use of child passenger restraints where
the State of Hawai'i failed to prove that the child was under the
age of fours and (3) the court erred by excluding Hernandez’ s

testimony

 

that hie wife informed him that the date circled on
+ ung § 291-116 tates, in pertinent part, as follows:

s
Except

 

11.6 Mandatory use of seat belts, when, pensity. (2)
‘Otherwise provided by Law, no person:
i Sonotor vehicle upon an}

 

     

ai public highway

jest belt

 

 

jensly if between the a
Sie testreines pursuant te section 291-11.5 if under
the age of four?

12) TE ei¥2etn years of age or more shall be a passenger

In the front seat of 2 motor vehicle being operated,
pon ny public highway unless such person is
Festroined by 3 seat belt assembly; and

(3) TEbetween the ages of £1fteen and seventeen, shall be

a ipassenger in the back seat of a motor vehicle being
‘Operated upon any poblic highway unless such person is
festrsined by s seat belt asseably.

As used in this section "seat belt assembly” means the seat
belt assenbly required to be in the motor vehicle under any.
Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued pursuant to Public
Law 89-563, the federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Aer of 1896, a2 amended, snless original replacement seat belt
Desenbiles are not readily available, If replacement assemblies
Gre net Feadily available, seat belts of federally approved
Roterials with similar protective characteristics nay be ured
Sach replecencne seat belt assemblies shall be permanently marked
Ey the belt manufacturer indicsting compliance with all applicable
federal standards.

 

 

 

   

  

 

 

 

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
the receipt was his next court date -- where it was offered as
evidence of his state of mind and not for the truth of the matter
asserted.

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 that: (1)
the record contains substantial evidence to support Hernandez’s
conviction of the offense of failure to appear in answer to a
citation:? (2) the record contains substantial evidence to
support Hernandez’s conviction of the offense of mandatory use of
child passenger restraints:‘ and (3) the district court properly
excluded the evidence in question inasmuch as (a) the receipt,
allegedly identifying February 13, 2002 as Hernandez’s court

date, was not provided to the prosecution following the

 

+ See HRS § 803-6(e) (*WiLful failure to appear in answer to the
citation may Be punished by 8 fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of
snot more than 30' days or both.")7 HRS § 702-210 (1993) ("A requirement that an
Offense 48 conittes wilfully Ae satisfied if @ person acts knowingly with
Fespect to the elements of the offense, unless # purpose to inpose further
Fequirenents appears.”); ARS § 702-206(2) (1993) (defining the term
Sfrowingly"}7 State v ul, 104 Hawal'l 462, 467, 92 Pu3d 471, €76 (2008)
(Substantial evidence is Credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and
probative value to enable 2 person of reascnable caution to reach
Conclusion.) {quotation marks omitted) (citation onitted); State v. Masaniai,
haw. App. 586, 569, 788 P.2d 176, 178 (1990),

State vs Hicks,’ 71 Haw. 566, 198 P.24 906 (1990) ("the record shows that
Nasaniai wes personally instructed to eppear in court on September 25, 1986
‘and chat he did not appear on that date or thereafter until he appeared
involuntarily on Novenber 4, 1986. The only reasonable inference that can be
draun from these facts 18 that Maganiai’s nonappearance was intentional and
contenptuous.”)-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«See HRS § 291-11.5 (delineating the offense of mandatory use of
child passenger restraints); Bui, 104 Nawai's ot 467, 92 P.3d at 476
(SGubetantial evisence is credible evigence which is of sufficient quality and
probative value to enable s person of reasonable caution to reach a
Conclusion.) (quetaticn marks omitted) (citation oni teed) «

 

 

 

3
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
prosecution’s discovery request, (b) the evidence was irrelevant
insofar as Hernandez failed to establish whether he had his wife
attenpt to obtain the court date before or after it had already
passed. In light of our holding, we need not address the
remaining point of error. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 28, 2006.

 

on the brief

Jon N. Tkenaga, Do

Deputy Public Defender, .
for defendant-appellant Shibata

Roselio R. Hernandez

Jason M. Skier, Desetee CS TNacey Lone
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

for piaineitf-appelies

State of Hawa

 

 

Gomme Dede dh: