Title: State v. Starley

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Law uBRAr

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

 

 

et
‘vs. 3 2

CHRISTINA STARLEY, Defendant-Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-CR. NO. 01-1-1945)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

 

Defendant-appellant Christina M. Starley [hereinafter
Yehristina”] appeals from the first circuit family court's!
January 7, 2002 judgment convicting Christina of the offense of
abuse of a family or household member, in violation of Hawai'i
Revised Statutes (hereinafter “HAS”] § 709-906 (Supp. 2001)? and

sentencing her to two years of probation. Christina raises the

 

following points of error on appeal: (1) the jury instructions

were defective inasmuch as they did not clearly set forth the
requirement that the act and result must each be accompanied by

the requisite state of mind; (2) the family court erred by

‘The Honorable Steven Alm presided.
HES § 709-506 provides, in relevant part, the following:

8708-906 Abuse of fanily or household meshers; penalty.
(2) Ie shail be unlawtel for any person, singly oF in concert, to
physically abuse 2 family or household member or to refuse
Compliance with the lawfvl order of a police officer under
Subsection (4). ‘The police, in investigating any complaint of
abuse of @ family or household menber, upon request, may transport
the abused person to a hospital or sate shelter.

For the purposes of this section, “family or household
menber* nesns spouses or reciprocal beneficiaries, former
Of feciprocsl beneficiaries, persons who have @ child in common,
parents, children, persone related by consenguinity, and persone
Jointly’ residing or formerly residing in the sane dwelling unit.

 

 

  
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

8 proposed specific

 

refusing to provide the jury with Christiné
unanimity instruction; (3) the family court improperly excluded
relevant evidence by sustaining the prosecution’ s objection to
questions about the relationship between Rulon Hal Starley and
his attorney, as it pertained to the filing of the instant
charges and (4) the jury’s verdict was not supported by
substantial evidence in the record.

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 family court’s consolidation of the “conduct” and “result”
elements of the offense in its jury instructions did not
adversely affect Christina’s substantial rights;? (2) the family
court did net err by refusing to read Christina’s proposed
unanimity instruction inasmuch as the prosecution effectively
elected the culpable act upon which it relied to establish a
violation of HRS § 709-906;' (3) the family court did not err by

 

> See State v. Aaanen, 97 Hawai'i 295, 303, 36 P.3d 1269, 1273
(2002) (win this case, the circuit court incorractly listed “conduct” and
“result” together as one element. On remand, the elements of “conduct” and
Spesult” Should be separately listed. Although the circuit covrt erroneously.
LiStea the requisite state of mind as 4 “material element,” contrary to HRS §
702-205, . "She exxor did not adversely affect Aganon’ s substantial riahts.
‘The courts’ jaey nstructions were consonant with the spirit of HRS § Toz=204,
hich prescribes that the requisite state of mind applies to each element of
the offense. Thus, the jury instructions were substantively, if not
technically correct.”) (Emphasis added.)

 

 

 

+ See State vs Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 32-33, 928 P.2d 843, 874-75
(2996) (“[w}e hola that when separate and distinct culpable acts are subsuned
within @ single count charging # sexual assault-vany one of which could
Support a conviction thereunder--and the defendant is uitinately convicted by
ry of the charged offense, the defendant’s constitutional right to a
Unaninous verdict is violated unless one or both of the following eccurs: (2)
at or Before the close of its case-in-chief, the prosecution is required to
elect the specific act upon which it is relying to establish the “conduct”
Glenent of the charged offense; or (2) the trial court gives the jury a
(Bont Ln

 

 

 

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
sustaining the prosecution’s objections to questions regarding
the relationship between Hal and his attorney inasmuch as
Christina failed to make offers of proof and thus failed to
preserve the issue for appeal;’ and (4) there was sufficient
evidence to support Christina’s conviction of the offense of

abuse of family or household members.* Therefore,

 

$1. scontinues)
specific unanimity instruction, ies, an instruction that advises the jury
thet ail twelve menbers must agree that the sane underlying criminal act has
been proved beyond a reasonable deubt.")) State v. Ortiz, 92 Hawai's 101, 196,
Sei Prag liz7, 1144 (1999) ("The prosecution made Gp effort to develop the
fects necessary to establish a vielation of HRS § 708°831 (b) (2) with regard to
the'theft cf Jennson’ s property. Accordingly we hold that the prosecution
effectively made an election, in satisfaction of the requirenents set out, in
Aiseo.”)"(emphasie in original); State v. Maumalanga, $0 Hawai'i 58, 64, 976
Brbacsv2, Sve 11998) (accordingly, inaemoch se pg effort was made to develop
the facts necessary to establiah @ violation of HRS § 154-6 with regard to the
period in uhich Maumalanga transported the firearne from his hone to his place
bf business or to argue That the aforementioned act constituted a violation,
Ne nels, on the present record, that the prosecution made an effective
Siection, in satisfaction of the Stenente, to base its charge of
place co'keep loaded fireazm on Maunalanga’s conduct in taking the firearm
From his wetkpiace to the gaz station where the shooting incident occurred.”
(emphasis in original) -

 

 

 

 

 

+ sae Nawas's Rules of Evidence [hereinafter MRE") Rule 103(a) (2)
(1993) ("Error may not be predicated upon = ruling which admits or excludes
evidence unless # substantial right of the party is affected, and... (i)n
Case the ruling 1s one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was
mmace known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which
Questions were askes.”)7 Commentary to HRE Rule 103(a) ("This subsection
Gxpresses the principle that a ruling admitting or excluding evidence csnnot
bevassigned ax error unless ie affects a substential right and unless the
Court ig clearly apprised of the nature of the clained error and of the
Corfective action sought, The objection or motion to strike, addressed toa
ruling adnitting evidence, and the offer of proof, directed to 2 reling

(cluding evidence, provide the appropriate mechanisms.) 7
i tau. 475, 922-23, "6¢9 F.2d 58, 16 (1993) (holding that the teiel court did
net commit reversivie error by excluding evidence where Kelekolio failed to
make en offer of proof

 

 

 

 

 

“tn Skate ve AKL, 102 Hawal"s 457, 464, 77 P.3d 948, 995 (APP.
2003), the Intermediate Court of Appeals rejected » similar claim of
insufficient evidence, a6 follows

Clearly, for both argunents, Aki relies upon the story

supported by his and Clark's trial testimonies. Aki forgets that,

Where the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned, we take the
(cont ined...)

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED:
on the briefs:

Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 5, 2006.

 

Stuart N. Fujioka

of Nishioka & Fujioka
for defendant-appellant

Christina starley

Mark Yuen, Deputy Rihme
Prosecuting Attorney,

Seen tora Pret Cay ee

State of Hawai'i

Come. AGisith

 

*(.seontinuea)

Widerce ‘in the Light most favorable to the State(.]’ [state
Ei]Lisstonse, 72 Haw. (573,] 576, 627 P20 (648,] 651 ((2992)]
(citations omitted). From that perspective, Clark's written
statenent to the police prevails. In that version of the
incident, Aki, in the hest of argument, grabbed and pulled Clark's
hair, then hit her'in the mouth, inmediately after Clark had told
him the wae “not going to take any more of his abuse.” To be
Sure, this was substantial evidence for the jury to find pens rea
Beto results

Tn the fina anelysis, Aki’s plaint of inaufficiency of the
evidence is; that the jury should not have believed the written
Statenent over the live testinony at trial. But credibility and
weight of the evidence are matters that begin and end with the
Jury, and concern us not on appeal.

 

   

 

 

 

 

(sone brackets added, some in original.) See alse State vs Martinez, 101
340, 60 P.3d 606, 614 (2003) (Bue “[ijt is well settled chat an

Jate court will not pass upen issues dependent upon the credibility of

land the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of
{alteration in original) (citations omitted); state va Mischell, 34
anal’ 368, 393, 15 P.3d 314, 319 (Rp. 2000) ("The appellate court will
neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor interfere with the decision of the
trier of fact based on the witnesses’ credibility or the weight of the