Title: State v. Pyle

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
No. 25921

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE oF uAWAgEl..

64.435,

 

crate oF whnr, Flowtitiappeniee,
vs. ri 3

ROBERT C. PYLE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.-

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HPD TRAFFIC NO. 002501869)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

inson, Ni Aco}

 

and Duffy, 33.)

   

(By: Moon, C.J,

 

Defendant-Appeliant Robert C. Pyle, Jr. (“Robert”)
appeals from the judgment of the District Court of the First
Circuit (“district court”) filed on October 20, 2003, the
Honorable Judge Michael Marr presiding. At trial, Robert was
found guilty of operating @ vehicle under the influence of an
Antoxicant (“OVUII") in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes
(OMRS") § 2918-61 (a) (1) (Supp. 2002).*

On appeal, Robert asserts that the district court erred

 

by: (1) allowing the witness-officers of the Honolulu Police

Department (“HPD”) to testify as to “clues,” “results,” and
“failure” of Robert's field sobriety test (“FST”); (2) allowing
HPD Officer Brandon Yamamoto to testify as to the contents of the

+ uns § 2918-61(a) (1) (Supp. 2002), the version in effect at the
tine of Robert's arrest, reads:

(a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the
influence of sn intoxicant if the person operates or assumes
actual physical control of a vehicle:

(2) mile under the infivence of alcohol in an amount
sufficient to impair the person's normal Faculties or
ability to care for the person and guard against casualty.

     

qa
   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAlI REPORTS AND PACIFICREFORTER
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (*NHTSA”)
manual in the absence of having the manual itself admitted into
evidence or made available to the defense, thereby violating the
best evidence rule, Hawai" Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 1002
(3993)? (3) improperly taking judicial notice that red, glassy
and watery eyes are indicia of intoxication; and (4) finding
sufficient admissible evidence to convict Robert of ovUrT.

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, and addressing
Robert's best evidence rule and judicial notice arguments first,
we hold a follow
(2) The district court did not violate the best

 

evidence rule, because the prosecution expressly stated in
response to defense objection that it was not offering to prove
the contents of the NETSA manual. Indeed, the district court

expressly gave its rationale for overruling the defense

 

 

objection, stating that ". . . . these are all... .
tion: ns as to wl obvious) [vas
Jed) to believe defendant was intoxicated.” (Emphases added.)

Thus, the court made clear that it was only allowing
the testimony as to the NHTSA manual for foundational purposes,
and not to prove its contents. Cf. State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai’
288, 298, 983 P.2d 189, 199 (1999) (“this was a bench trial, and

 

it is well established that judge is presumed not to be
influenced by incompetent evidence(}” (citation omitted)

 

* MRE Rule 2002 provides in pertinent part: “(t]e prove the content

of a writing... the original writing is requires ss

2
     

+ NOT_ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

(internal quotation marks omitted) ).
(2) The district court did not err in taking judicial
notice of “glassy, red, watery eyes” as indicia of intoxication.
While we have not expressly judicially noticed “glassy, red,
watery eyes” as indicia of intoxication, this court and the
Intermediate Court of Appeals have frequently found an
association between this physical symptom and intoxication. See
f.g., State v, Dow, 96 Hawai'i 320, 325-26, 30 P.3d 926, 931-32
(2001) (holding that lay testimony as to defendant's “bloodshot
eyes and an attendant odor of alcohol” could be use to
“corroborate a factual inference” that defendant’s blood alcohol
content level was 0.19, rather than .0019)7 Viset, 91 Hawai'i at
293, 983 P.2d at 194 (finding that police officer

 

testimony
that defendant had “red and glassy” eyes and an odor of alcohol
on his breath, inter alia, constituted sufficient evidence for a
reasonable fact-finder to conclude that defendant was DUI); State
ve Nishi, 9 Haw. App. 516, 524, 852 P.2d 476, 481 (1993)
(impliedly recognizing defendant's “red glassy bloodshot” eyes as,
substantial evidence to sustain his DUI conviction); State v,
Mitchell, 94 Hawai'i 388, 399, 15 P.3d 314, 325 (App. 2000)
("[t}he testimonies of the police officers painted a classic

th was redolent of

 

portrait of intoxication. Mitchell's br
alcohol. His speech was slurred. His eves were red, bloodshot
anduatery. . . .” (emphasis added)); and State v. Ferrer, 95
Hawai'i 409, 431, 23 P.3d 744, 766 (App. 2001) (deferring to
district court's finding that defendant’s red eyes and odor of
alcohol on his breath, inter alia, constituted probable cause to

 

arrest him for DUI).
 

‘++ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,
Moreover, as in the afore-cited cases, evidence of
Robert's “glassy, red, watery eyes” was not viewed in isolation:
in the instant case, both police officers at the accident scene
who observed Robert also noted his slurred speech, to which no
defense objection was made, and the “strong” odor of alcohol on

his breath. We also note that the district court carefully

 

 

considered the “totality of circumstances” in making its ruling.
Thus, we are unconvinced that the district court exceeded the
bounds of reason in taking judicial notice of “glassy, red,
watery eyes” as indicia of intoxication.

(3) Assuming arauendo that the district court erred in
admitting all testimony specifically relating to Robert's FST,
following sedulous review of the record, such errors were
harmless in Light of the overwhelming and compelling evidence
tending to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Robert vas under
the influence of alcchol in an anount sufficient to impair his
ability to guard against casualty; thus, there is no reasonable

possibility that the FST-related evidence contributed to Robert's

conviction. See State v. Tovomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 27, 904 P.2d
293, 912 (1996); State v. Kaiama, 61 Hawai"! 15, 22-23, 911 P.2d

738, 742-43 (1996); HRS § 2918-61 (a) (1). Of particular note is
the district court’s express ruling that all of the FST subtests
(the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the ‘walk and turn” test,
and the “one leg stand” test) were considered only “minor
factors” in its “totality of circumstances” analysis.

(4) Finally, 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
 

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

Ancompetent evidence is rendered harmless, a fortiori, we hold

that there is more than substantial evidence to uphold Robert's

OVvUII conviction.
P.2d 87, 61 (1996).
affirmed.

As such,

‘Therefore,

See State v. Pastman, 81 Hawai'i 131, 135, 913

Robert's OVUII conviction is

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Robert’s OVUIT conviction is

affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i,

on the briefs:

Earle A. Partington for
defendant-appellant

Mark Yuen, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney,
for plaintitf-appel.

 

 

September 29, 2006.

ona e. Oodtss -