Title: State v. Thomas

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
No. 25554

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HANAT'T

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve. Bax

RICHARD THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. £5

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST cared 7

(HED CR. NO. 02307339)

 

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

Defendant-appellant Richard Thomas [hereinafter
~thomas”], appeals from the district court's! November 26, 2002
judgment convicting him of the offense of harassment, in
violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes [hereinafter “HRS”] § 711-
1106(2) (a) (Supp. 2002).? On appeal, Thomas presents the
following two points of error: (1) the district court’s findings
of fact were clearly erroneous, and its conclusion of law,
adjudging him guilty of the charged offense, was wrongs and (2)
the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to overcome

the presumption of innocence to which he was constitutionally

entitled.

 

lear who presided. The lower court record indicates that
tthe Honorable Michael Marr presided at the Novenber 26, 2002 trial. However,
the tranceript of the Novenber 26, 2002 proceedings indicates thet the
Honorable Lawrence R. Cohen preside

  

 

+ RS § 721-1106(2) 1a) provides a follows

the offense of
[am any other

6711-1206 Harasement. (1) A person commit:
harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, oF
person, that person:
(a) strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches ancther
person in an offensive manner or subjects the other
Berson to offensive physical contact|.]

 

 

   

nats
+ NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

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:

(2) A review of the challenged findings of fact reveal
that they are determinations of credibility. Accordingly, it is
sufficient that we have repeatedly endorsed the maxim that the
reconciliation of conflicting witness testimony is beyond the
scope of appellate review.’ Even assuming, arauendo, that this
court may overturn a trial court's credibility determination
based upon a demonstration, by clear and convincing evidence,

that the credibility determination was incorrect,‘ Thomas has

 

(veut *[i)t ie well-settled that an eppellate court will not pass ‘upon issues
Gependent upon the credibility of withesses and the weight of the evidence;
this is the province of the trier of fect.'*) (Brackets in original.)
(Citations omitted.) Skate v, Martines, 101 Hawai'i 332, 340, 68 F.3d 606,
G14 (2003) ("It ie well-settlea thet an eppellate court ‘will ‘not pass upon
iseues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidences
this is the province of the trier of fact.*) (Citations omitted.)) State v
Mitenela, "96 Hawas's 366, 393, 15 P-3d 314, 319 (App. 2000) (The appell
Court will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor interfere with tl
Gecision of the trier of fact bases on the witnesses’ credibility or the
weight of the evidence.) (Citations omltted.); amfac, Inc. v, Waikiki

ison, 34 Haw, 8S, 217, 639 P.24 10, 26 11992) (Horeaver,
“fain appellate court will not pase upon issues dependent upon credibility of
witnesses end the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trial
Jusge.’") “(rackets in original.) (Citations omitted. ).

> See Fisher v, Fisher, 111 Mawas't 42, 46, 137 P.34 355, 360 (2006)

 

  

 

 

   

   

 

 

+ thomas suggests thet the categorical preclusion of credibility
Seques ie a violation of this court's cbligation to afford him due process on
However, that mere assertion, without invoking the proper due proces!
fo trigger this court's jugicis! machinery.
cited in support of his due process challenge is the
United States Suprene Court's decision in Miller-E v. Cockrel], 537 U.S. 322
(2003). in Miijerstl, the Court reviewed 8 crininel defendent’s claim that
the prosecution's exercise of its peremptory challenges was racially
fotivated, Id. at 326. The Court stated that “inpisveible or fantsstic
Justiticatsone nay (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful
Gsecriminstson(,]” id. at 339 (citation omitted), ond that “the iseue cones
down te whether the tial court finds the prosecuter’s race-nevtral.
explanations to be crecible.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court continued:

 

   

   

 

   

Deference is necessary because @ reviewing court, which
(eéontinved. ..)
 

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

failed to make the requisite showing.
(2) Viewed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution,* the evidence is that (a) Thomas tailgated the
complaining witness from Kunia Road to the Kapolei police
station, (b) Thomas grabbed the complaining witness and pinned

 

 

scontinued)
‘snelyzes only the traneeripts from yoir dire, is not as well
positioned as the trial court is to make credibility
Beterminations. “[1]f sn appellate court accepts a trial court's
finging thet a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for his
Derenptory challenges should be believed, we fail to see how the
Sppeliace court nevertheless could find discrimination. The
ePesibiiity of the prosecutor's explanation goes to the heart of
fhe equal protection snalysis, and once that has been settled,
there seems to be nothing left to review.”

 

Ed, at 239-340 (citing Hernando: v.tew York, $00 U.S. 352, 367 (1991)
{plurality opinton)) (brackets in original).

Nevertheless, the Court reascne
Jbandoment of sbdieation of Judiciel review,” id. et 340, and that “(a
federal coure can disagree with a gtate court's credibility determination end

‘Conclude the decision wae unressonable or that the factual prenise wi
Incorrect by clear and convincing evidence.”

‘Thomas construes MillersEl as requiring this court to r
che district court’s credibility determinations and overturn then if
be incorrect by clear and convincing evidence. However, Thomas has failed to
Clee any legal sutherity of make any discernible argument explaining how the
foregoing federel precedent binds this court. Thomas also fails to explain
hows vin light of Milereel, hie due process Tights have been violated. See
Hewoi'i Rules of Appellate Proceduze [hereinafcer “HRAP") Rule 28 (b) (4) (2002)
(Spointe not presented. will be Gieregerded.”); HRAP Rule 26(b) (7) (2002)
(Pointe not sxgued nay be deemed waived."

 

thet “deference does not inply

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

+ an State v, Viglielme, 105 Hawai'i 197, 202-03, 95 P.3d 952, 958
(2004) (quotation marke omitted) {citations omitted) (brackets in original),
we stated that

 

evidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the
Slrosgest light for the prosecution when the sppellate court
passes cn the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support
Eonviction; the same stendard applies whether the case was before
S judge or # Jury. The test on eppeal is not whether guilt is
Gsteblished beyond 2 reasonable doubt, bat wnether there was
Substantial evidence te support the conclusion of the trier of

f intel evidence as to every material elenent of the
ged is credible evidence which is of sufficient
Quelity and probative velue to enables [person] of reasonable
Gavtion to support = conclusion.

 

  

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
her against her car, (c) Thomas cursed at the complaining witness
and struck her in the right eye, and (é) although ancther witness
was in the parking lot during the incident, she was unaware of
the incident having been preoccupied with either unloading her
telephone books and/or supervising her children. Accordingly,
the record contains sufficient evidence supporting Thomas’
conviction of the offense of harassment, in violation of HRS §
721-1106(2) (a). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's
November 26, 2002 judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 27, 2006.
on the briefs:

James S. Gifford, Deputy

Public Defender, for
defendant -appel lant

Richard Thomas

James M. Anderson, Deputy Hp Lriser

Prosecuting Attorney, for

pleintiff-eppelice Baseuee Nace eeree

State of Hawai'i

Var €. Baliye Oh +