Title: State v. Chapa

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY.

 

 

   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAll REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER #
No. 25646 in B
STATE OF HAWAT'T, Plaintiff-Appellee, 5

JESUS MARIA CHAPA, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(Case No, TD 1A of 01/08/03)

Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

(By: Moon, C.J.
Jr. ("Chapa"),

 

Defendant-Appellant Jesus Maria Chapa,
appeals from the first circuit district court’s ("district
court”) January 8, 2003 judgment,’ convicting him of the offense
of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in
violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 2918-61(a) (1).
Chapa presents the following two points of error on appeal: (1)
the district court erred by permitting Honolulu Police Officer
Sean Kaipo Nahina ("Officer Nahina”) to testify as to the results
(°SPST”) inasmuch as the

of a standardized field sobriety test
and (2) the

 

foundation for such testimony was insufficient
district court erred by permitting Officer Nahina to testify as

 

2 the Honorable Fa‘auuga To'ote'e presided.

+ uns § 2918-61(a) (2) (Supp. 2002) provides that

 

[a] person connits the offense of operating a vehicle under the
Influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assunes
actual physical control of 2 vehicle [w[hile under the
Influence of alcohol in an amount aufiicsent to Ampair the
person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for the person

and guard against casualty(.]

 
 

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

to the contents of a National Highway Traffic safety
Administration (“NHTSA”) training manual ingofar as the manual
was not offered in evidence and was not available to the defense.
upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the argunents advanced and the issues raised, we hold that: (1)
although the district court abused its discretion by permitting
Officer Nahina to testify that (a) he observed the onset of
nystagmus prior to 45 degrees,* and (b) Chapa “failed” the WAT

> ie agree with Chaps that an inproper foundation was laid for
Cfficer Nahina’s testimony thet he observes nystagmus "in both eyes for each
test.” The NATSA manual expressly instructs police officers to *(p)ractice
you can consistently estimate 45 degrees. Check yourself monthly with
wT 1S" square tenplate of cardboard with a diagonal line drawn from on
corner to ancener to denark 45 degrees] to be sure that your accuracy has been
Sustained.” state vee, 90 Hawai'd 225, 244 9.10, 978 P.2d 191, 210 0.10
(app. 1999) (bracket in original) (emphasis in original) (citing 1984 NHTSA
1 '§ 10.99(2], app.
Sti 10-92), "Additionally, Chaps submited into evigence an excerpt from the
1984 NATSA student manual, which explains why the measurement of a 45 degree
angle is vital: “since the extent of impairment 1s indicated by the angie at
hich aystagmos begins, you will need co learn now to estinate this angle
“particularly the angie of 4S-degrees, since shat is the crucial oolnt for
astinsting BAL.” (Emphasis acded-) Officer Nanina’s failure to Fostanely
Serify the accuracy of Nis messurenent of 2 45 degree angle calls into
guestion his conclusion that Chaps exhibited the onset of nystagmus prior to
‘Evdesrees, and it precludes the conclusion that that portion of the HON test
was Speoperly administered.” gee Luo, at 244, 978 P.26 at 210 ("Before HCN
fest results can be adniteed into evidence in's particular case, it must
be shown that (1) the officer administering the test was duly qualified to
Conduct ‘the test and grade the test results, .. and (2) she test was.
-*) (Internal citations omitted.)
(Emphasis added]. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its
Giseretion by permitting Officer Nahina to testify as such. See State m
Herrer, 95 Hawai'i 409, 425, 23 P.3d 744, 760 (App. 2001), zeconsigeration
95 Hawai'i 409, 23 .3a 744 ("In'the absence of foundational testinony
Establishing conformity to the NNZSA training standards, we conclude that the
ict court abused its discretion when it allowed [the police officer] to
Sify about (the defendant’ s] perforeance on the WGN test.)

   

 

        

 

 

   

 

  

 

 

 

      

2
   

[NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
and OLS tests,‘ the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt;? and (2) Hawai‘! Rules of Evidence (*HRE”) Rule 1002 did
not require the prosecution to produce the NHTSA manual, insofar
as Officer Nahina’s testimony regarding the manual was a

collateral matter falling within the ambit of HRE Rule 1004(4).7

 

‘the excerpt from the 1984 NHTSA student manual submitted into
evidence by Chapa requires chat the WAT and OLS tests be adsinistered on level
Ground. Itasmach as both the prosecution and Chapa stipulated that the HAT
Ses OLS teste were administered on ground with « slope of approximately 25
Gegrees, we cannot conclude that WAT and OLS tests were properly aaainistered.
Thusy the district court abuses its discretion by permitting Officer Nahina to
testity that Chapa “failed” those tests. See Fezrer, 95 Hawai's at 429, 23
pibg-at Tet ("(1]t se permissible for a police officer to testify as a lay
Witness about his or her observations of a defendant's performance on various
Fors and'to give an opinion, pesed on such observations, that the defencant
Was intoxicated. However, onless proper foundation is laid, it is improper
for a police officer to testify thet in his or her opinion, a defendant
“failed” or ‘passes’ a FST.").

 

      
 

 

 

+ ere, the record indicates that: (1) Chapa was weaving between
the right and center Lanes on the freeway? (2) Chaps did not immediately
Eespond to Officer Wahina’s blue Lights and siren, snd Officer Nahine was
forced to pull alongeide Chapa’s vehicle and yell at him to pull over; (3)
then asked for his Iicense, registration and insurance, Chepa "seened
Confused, and his bead wae bobbing a littie(s]" (4) Chepa's eyes were “red,
watery, bloodshot(,]” and "an odor of an alcoholic type beverage” enanated
ron Bis veniele; (5) shen instructed to take nine steps forward, heel to too,
turn, and return in the sane fashion, Chape "started too early,” and he “took
Feslly quick steps. He missed Reel to toe all nine. His erns were raised
Throughout the walking(:]” and (6) when instructed to stand on one leg for a
certain period Of tine, Chapa “raised his arms. He swayed, and put his foot
Gow{.I"" Viewing the foregoing competent evidence in the light most favorable
forthe prosecution, gee State v. Bui, 104 Hawai'i 462, 467, 92 P.3d 471, 476
(2004) (the test on appeal in reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence
Je wheeher, when reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion of the
Erier of fact."l, wo conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
Chapa’e conviction for the offense of ariving under the influence of an
Sntoxicant, ip violation of HRS § 2916-61 (a) (1).

 

 

 

 

 

+ ne Rule 1002 (1993) provides that, “{tJo prove the content of
weiting, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, oF
Photograph is required, except 2s otherwise provided in these rules or by
Statute.”

 

7 RE Rule 1004 (1993) provides that, [t]he original or a duplicate
As not raquired, and other evidence of the contents of s writing, recording,
‘continued.

 

 

 
 

‘Therefore,

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

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court’s January

8, 2006 judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 13, 2006.

on the briefs:

Farle A. Partington
for defendant ~appellant
Jesus Maria Chapa, Jr.

 

 

James M. Anderson, Blaine
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, \
for plaintiff-appellee o are.
state of Hawai'i Tears
Koran e Raber by
(cont inves)
cor photograph is saniseible if . . . [t]he wetting, recording, oF photograph

Se hot closely related to 9 conteoiiing issue.”

4