Title: State v. Kaʻapuni

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

#44 NOT FOR PUBLICATION ++

No, 25888

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HANAT'T

eo

STATE OF HAWALT, =
Plaintift-Appellee-Petitioner, 22
2 fF
vs. z m
z 6

JON KNAPUNT, =

defendant “Appel lant-Respondent.. 3

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CASE NOS. TR 4 6 TR 5: 05/13/03,
CITATION NOS. 00155623" 6 00145612")

 

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy Jd.)

on March 14, 2005, the plaintiff-appellee-petitioner
state of Hawai'i [hereinafter, “the prosecution”) filed an
application for a writ of certiorari (AWC), requesting that this
court review the Intermediate Court of Appeal’ (ICA's)
‘unpublished memorandum opinion (hereinafter, “the Opinion”],
filed on February 11, 2005, affirming in part and reversing in
part the November 21, 2003 judgment of the district court of the
second circuit, the Honorable Douglas . Ige presiding,
convicting the defendant-appellant-respondent Jon Hans Ka‘apuni
of and sentencing him for the offenses of (1) driving under the
influence of intoxicating liquor [hereinafter, “DUI"], in
violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4 (Supp. 2000)
and (2) inattention to driving (ITD), HRS § 291-12 (Supp. 2001).

on March 22, 2008, we granted certiorari.
‘84 NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*
‘The prosecution's sole contention in its application is

that

tthe offense of [ITD] was established without evidence of
Tnek of personal injury or property damage where, in the
Light most favorable to the (prosecution) where the trial
[our] is permitted to draw ail reasonable inferences from,
and to determine the weight and credibility of, the
Seidence, sufficient evidence existed of operating the
Yenicle without due ss +

 

 

 

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 (1) that
the ICA’s opinion reflects grievous errors of law or fact, see
HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), and (2) that there is sufficient evidence
to support the district court’s conviction Ka'apuni of 17D.

HRS § 291-12 provides that a defendant violates the
offense of ITD when the individual “operates a vehicle” in one of
three ways: (1) “without due care”; (2) operating a vehicle “in
a manner as to cause a collision with . . . any person, vehicle
or other property"; and (3) operating a vehicle “in a manner as
to cause injury or damage to . . . any person, vehicle or other
property[.1” Cf. State v. Momoki, 98 Hawai'i 188, 46 P.3d 1
(App. 2002) (observing that “the element of driving ‘without due
care’ is an alternative one to the element of driving ‘in a
manner as to cause a collision with, or injury or damage to, as
the case may be, any person, vehicle, or other property’).

In the present matter, as stated by the ICA in its
opinion, the evidence viewed most favorably to the prosecution is
as follows:

(a) the car Kaapund was driving went off the side of the

fead\at an incersection, (b) there nas a sound of 8 crash,
{el when fact (a) and (b) above happened, Kaapunt was under

 

    
‘+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*

‘the influence of alcohol, but (4) the crash did not cause
Sny personal injury oF property danage.

It is further noteworthy that, as the ICA stated in its
background section, “the officer ‘observed [Ka‘apuni’s] vehicle
in the brush area just south of the intersection’” after “the
neighbor” heard the sound of the crash.

As the ICA observed, it is clear from the foregoing
that Ka'apuni’s conduct does not fall within the purview of
RS § 291-12 via the conduct element of operating a vehicle in a
manner that “cause(s] injury or damage to. . . any person,
vehicle or other property{.]” Nevertheless, viewing the evidence
most favorably to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence
for the district court to conclude that Ka'apuni operated his
vehicle “without due care” (ise, by driving his car off the road
in such a manner as to cause loud crash and come to rest in the

“brush area”)

 

Moreover, based upon the record, there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the district court
could fairly conclude that Ka'apuni possessed the requisite state
of mind at the time that he drove his car off the road and into
the brush area. See State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d
924, 934 (1992) ("Given the difficulty of proving the requisite
state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, {wle have
consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the
[defendant's conduct] is sufficient.” (Internal quotation
signals and citations omitted.)).

‘Thus, because the evidence, “considered in the

strongest light for the prosecution,” is “legai{ly] sufficien|t)
#8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION **+
|. te support (Ka'apuni’s) conviction,” State v. Viglielmo,
105 Hawai'i 197, 202-03, 95 P.3d 952, 957-8 (2004) (internal
quotation signals and citations omitted), we hold that district
court did not err in convicting Ke'apuni of ITD. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the ICA’s Opinion is
affirmed with regard to its affirmance of Ka'apuni’s conviction
of DUI, (2) the ICA's Opinion is reversed as to its reversal of
Ke'apuni’s conviction of ITD, and (3) the district court’s
conviction of Ka'apuni of the offense of I7D is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 31, 2005.
on the application
Arleen Y. Watanabe, G

Geputy prosecuting attorney, .
for the plaintiff-appellee- hex Karena —
petitioner State of Hawai'i
Peete ON macieyonce
oO Xx
¢ oN

Gon « 0004s