Case Title: State v. Edralin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 29061

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘senor FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*+#

 

Wo. 29061

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAMAT'T

r

    
 

STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Respondent /Plaintiff-Appellant

SHAYNE EORALIN,
Petitioner /Defendant-Appellee

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CR. NO, 07-1-0535)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama,
Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Shayne Edralin
(Petitioner) f1led a petition for writ of certiorari on June 10,
2009 (Application), seeking review of the judgment of the
Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) filed on March 12, 2009,
pursuant to its February 20, 2009 memorandun opinion (MOP)*
vacating the February 11, 2008 “order Granting Defendant's Motion
to Suppress Evidence and Statements” (Suppression Order) filed by
the circuit court of the first circuit (the court).? See State
v. Bdralin, No. 29061, 2009 WL 428555 (Haw. App. Feb. 20, 2009).

on March 19, 2007, Petitioner was charged by written

complaint with Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, under

1 the MOP wae filed by Presiding Judge Corinne K.A. Watanabe and
Associate Judge Danicl 8. Foley, with s separate concursing opinion filed by
Resociate Judge Craig H. Nakamura.

 

= the Honorable Dexter D. vel Rosario presides:

asus
 

‘seewor FOR PUBLICATION I MEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-716(1) (c) (Supp. 2006)
and/or HRS § 707-716(1) (d) (Supp. 2006)’. On August 27, 2007,
Petitioner filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements
(motion to Suppress). The specific itens Petitioner sought to
suppress were a knife and a sock filled with coins allegedly used
by Petitioner to commit the offense of terroristic threatening

and “any and all evidence, statements and actions that constitute

> RS § 707-716(1) (c)~(4) & (2) provides in relevant part

(2) _ A person commits the offense of terroristic
threatening in the first degree if the person comnts
torroristic threatening:

ici” Aaninst a public secvant arisine out of the

performance of the public servant's official
duties. For the purposes of this paragraph,
“public servant includes but is not

alimited to. an educations] worker.” “Educational,
worker" has the same meaning ae defined in
Section 707-1117 Ler)

   

@
(2) Terroristic threatening in the first degree is
class ¢ felony.

(Emphases sdded.)
HRs § 707-715 (Supp. 2008) provides that

4{nl_pexacn commits the offense of terroriatic threatening if

word oF conduct, toca
OF serious damage to property of
Snother or fo commit a felony:

(1) With the intent to terrorize, or in reckless
Gisregard of the Fisk of terrorizing, ansther
person: or

(2) Hie Theene co cause, oF in reckless disregard
Of the risk of causing evacuation of a building,

mbly, oF facility of public

 

 

(Emphases added.)
HRS § 707-700 (Supp. 2008) provides in relevant part that

“(dlangerous instrunent” means any firearm, whether loaded
or not, and whether operable oy not, or sther weapon,
Gevice, instrument, material, or substance, whether aninate
of inahinate, unich in the manner it is used or is intended
fo be used so known to be cepabie of producing death oF
serious bodily injury.

 

 
 

-NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'##

 

“fruits of the poisonous tree.’" ‘The Motion was based on

 

Petitioner's assertion that there was no reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to justify his initial seizure, which occurred
prior to the actions that allegedly constituted terroristic
threatening. Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai'i
(Respondent) filed a "Memorandum in Opposition to (Petitioner's)
Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements” on Novenber 1, 2007,

On Novenber 7, 2007, the court held a hearing on the
Motion to Suppress. On Noverber 21, 2007, the court held a
further hearing on the motion, and after additional argument,
orally granted the Motion to Suppress. The court filed its
Suppression Order, supported by a Statement of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, on February 11, 2008.

on March 7, 2008, the court held another hearing to
clarify what evidence was covered by the Suppression Order. The
court stated in relevant part at this hearing:

THE COURT! . . . So what I wish to clarity for

[Respondent] is that the basis for tne (eJourt’s granting

the motion was both the initial seizure of (Petitioner), his

Continuous Seizure, and his order co open bis hand unich the

Iclourt considers 3 search. So all the evidence derived

fiom the seizure of (Petitioner! including the observations

‘f-the officer, is supsressed and precluded from trial

(Emphasis added.)

 

Petitioner does not challenge any of the court’s
findings of fact (findings) in his Application, and Respondent
did not challenge the findings in its Opening Brief. Hence the
findings are binding. Kelly v, 1250 Oceanside Partners, 111
Hawas's 205, 227, 140 P.34 985, 1007 (2006) (*Generally, a court
finding that is not challenged on appeal is binding upon (the
appellate court].”). Moreover, “[a] conclusion of law

[(conclusion)] that is supported by the trial court's findings of
‘seenlot FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS++

 

fact and that reflects an application of the correct rule of law
Will not be overturned.” Dan v. State, 76 Hawai'i 423, 428, 879
P.2d $28, 533 (1994).

Based on the findings issued by the court as to the

 

motion to suppress, which are binding on this court, a they were
on the ICA, there is no indication that the court's conclusions
were unsupported, or represented an incorrect statement of the
law. The Suppression Order was therefore properly supported by
the court's findings and conclusions. Thus, the ICA gravely
erred in concluding that the court erred in suppressing the
evidence. Therefore, the ICA’s decision is reversed, and the
court's February 11, 2008 Suppression Order is hereby affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'l, September 15, 2009.

William Jameson
(Linda C.R. Jameson on

the brief and application)

for petitioner /defendant= Desetce CP eeecenay are
appeliee.

Brian R. Vincent for Pr ES
respandent/plaintiff-

appellant State of

Hawaii. Vou 6 Duddy

Pym E, Revista lef