Case Title: State v. Bryant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
No. 25480

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'D|

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.

VAGAN LEE BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(TRAFFIC HPD NO, 002268576)

(ey: Moon, ¢.., Levinson akayana, Rebs, and Duffy, 20.)
defendant-Appellant Vagan Lee Bryant (“Bryant”) appeals

from the judgnent and sentence of the District Court of the First
cizeuit! (‘district court”) entered on October 15, 2002, At
trial, Bryant was found guilty of (1) operating a vehicle while
under the influence of an intoxscant (*QVUII") in violation of
wns § 2916-61 (Supp. 2001) (effective January 1, 2002),? and (2)
disregarding a red traffic control signal in violation of HRS §
291c-22(a) (2) (8) (2993)?

 

+The Honorable George Y. Kimura presiced.

+ Rs § 251E-€1 (Supp. 2001), the version in effect at the tine of
Bryant's arrest, provided in pertinent part:

 

(a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the
Inkitenee ef an intoxicent if the person operates or assumes
Actual physical control of # vehicle:

(2) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount.
sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or
SELLEy Co care for the person and guard against casualty:

 

2 aRS § 291¢-32 2) (3){A) provides in pertinent part:

    

fic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop at 2
Ly marked stop iine, but if none, before entering the

 

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** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

 

On appeal, Bryant essentially contends: (1) the

 

district court committed rev

 

sible error in accepting
Ancompetent evidence of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (*HGN")
subtest of the field sobriety test (“FST”) given by police (in
this case, HPD Officer Daniel Jacso) to check for DUI violations,
where (a) Bryant had taken muscle relaxant medication on the day
of his traffic stop such that the HGM test's relisbility was
questionable, and (b) in any event, the HGN test was improperly
administered: (2) the failure of Officer Jacso to ascertain that
Bryant’s medication would not affect his performance on the other
two subtests of the FST (the “walk-and-turn” and “one-leg stand”
tests) “diminished” their reliability; (3) no “wealth of
overwhelming and compelling evidence” exists to support Bryant’ s
conviction for DUI such that any error in improperly admitting
evidence of the HGN subtest mist be deened harmless
notwithstanding the error; and (4) no substantial evidence exists
to support Bryant's conviction for DUI.

pon 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) Addressing Bryant's Points of Error Numbers 1, 3
and 4 together:

(a) First, as to Point of Error #1, the
prosecution made clear at trial that Jacso’s HGN testimony

was not being used as substantive evidence of Bryant's

  

Af none, then
ding’ unt?

 

entering the inte
fan indication to proc

 

shown]
‘** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

intoxication, but only to establish probable cause.
Inasmuch as Bryant does not raise lack of probable cause as
fan issue on appeal, this point of error is arguably moot.
In any event, Bryant’s arguments as to HGN are unavailing
because “this was a bench trial, and it is well established
that 2 judge is presumed not to be influenced by incompetent
evidence.” State v. Vliet, $1 Hawai'i 268, 298, 983 P.2d
169, 199 (1999) (emphasis added) (citation omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “This means that when
evidence is admissible for @ limited purpose, we presume
that the judge only considered the evidence for the
permissible purpose." State v. Licsn, 106 Hawai'i 123, 133,
102 P.34 367, 377 (App. 2004) (citations omitted).

Bryant can only point to two ambiguous statements
from the district court’s ruling (*[t]here’s the field
sobriety test” and. . . . from the performance on the
field sobriety test, his exiting the vehicle, and the light,
I find the Governnent has proved each and every element of
the crime for which the defendant has been charged beyond a
reasonable doubt ()*) in support of his bald assertion that

. the trial judge found the HGN and FST results
critical in finding Bryant guilty of DUI."* Admittedly, the
district court does not expressly exclude the HGN subtest

from “field sobriety test.” However, the mere presence of

 

+ the record reflects that the trial court carefully considered the
evidence in its ruling, a= it discussed the elenents of the DUT offense,
Bryant's consumption of alcohol, the relative credibility of the witness
Bryont’s physicel state after exiting venicle, "and the light” (presumably,
intended to mean “and the like”), in addition to the FST.

 

 

3
++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

an ambiguity cannot, by definition, affirmatively rebut the
presumption that the district court properly linited
consideration of the HGN subtest to probable cause and not
substantive purposes. See Viet and Licen, supra. As such,
Bryant's first argument must fail.

(=) Second, as to Point of Error #3, assuming
axguendo that (1) the district court accepted Jacso’s GN
testimony as substantive evidence, in contravention of the
prosecution’ s representation that such testimony was only to
be used for probable cause purposes, and (2) that the
testimony was incompetent evidence, the inguiry does not end
here.

As this court noted in State v. Kaiama, 61 Hawai'i
15, 22-23, 911 P.2d 735, 742-43 (1996):

{E]rror is not to be viewed in isolation and considered

ately in the abettact- "Te must be examined in light of the

EHLIY procetalngs and‘given the efsect unten the shole

Sint proc nant have ecntriusted te-sonsictiane

  

(Emphasis added.) (Citation omitted.) “where there is a
wealth of overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to
show the defendant guilty beyond @ reasonable doubt, errors
in the admission or exclusion of evidence are deemed
harmless.” State v, Tovomura, 60 Hawai'i 6, 27, 904 P.2d
893, 912 (1996).

Following sedulous review of the record, ve
discern ample overwhelming and compelling evidence,
independent of Jacso’s HGN testimony, tending to show that

Bryant was guilty of operating his vehicle “while under the
© NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
influence of alcohol in an anount sufficient to impair the
person's normal mental facilities or ability to care for the
person and guard against casualty.” See Tovomura, 60
Hawai'i at 27, 904 P.2d at 912 (citation omitted), and HRS §
2916-61 (a) (1) (Supp. 2001). Accordingly, we hold that there
is no reasonable possibility that Jacso’s HGN testimony
could have contributed to his DUI conviction.

(c) Third, as to Point of Error #4, in light of
our holding that overwhelming and compelling evidence exists
on the record such that any error committed by the district
court in accepting and considering incompetent evidence is
rendered harmless, a fortiori, we hold that there was
substantial evidence to uphold Bryant's OVUIT conviction.
Seq State v. Eastman, @1 Hawai'i 131, 135, 913 P.2d 57, 61
(1996). As such, Bryant’s OVUII conviction is affirmed.

(2) As to Bryant’s remaining contention, Point of
Error #2, we observe that Bryant has raised it for the first tine
on appeal. In State v, Nagole, 62 Haw, 563, 570, 617 P.2d 620,
826 (1980), this court stated that

[iit is the general role that exidence to sich no chisction hes

and ite

Eazission will not constiture ground for reveres!. [tas equally

 

sutablished that an neue raised for the {iret tine on anneal will
Sethe consigered by the reviewing cours’ Only where the ends of
Sostice require it, and fundanental rights would otherwise be
denied, will there be a departure fron these principles.

 

 

(Emphases added.) The record reflects that Bryant had ample
opportunity to object to Jacso’s testimony as to the “walk-and-
turn” and “one-leg stand” subtests which also comprise the FST.

Hig failure to do so below precludes him from asserting error for
** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
‘the first time on appeal. See Nacole. Consequently, we
disregard Bryant's remaining point of error.

(3) Because Bryant raises no discernible argument as
to his HRS § 291C-32(a) (3) (A) (1993) (disregarding a red traffic
control signal) conviction, it is affirmed.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment and sentence of
the district court is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 25, 2006.

pubive Gerenses,
for Defendant-Appellant eleven
vanes M. Anderson, pecseu Li reeyone

deputy prosecuting attorney,
for Plaintiff-Appellee

State of Hawai'i BN

Gcomn Ss