Title: State v. Rodrigues

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW Liban

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

NO. 26874

IN THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT‘T

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

ve

  

L930 sue

SHAUN C. RODRIGUES, Defendant-Appellant.-=/>

aad

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 00-21-1515)

s 0 ‘ORDER

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

Defendant-appellant Shaun C. Rodrigues appeals from the

judgment, filed on September 10, 2004, by the First Circuit
Court, the Honorable Virginia L. Crandall presiding, denying hie
Motion for Stay of Judgment to Either Allow the Gathering of
Additional Evidence and a Reopening of the Trial in this Matter
or for a New Trial (hereinafter, Motion to Reopen], and
challenges the December 23, 2003 Findings of Fact (FOF),
Conclusions of aw (COL), and Decision, adjudicating him guilty
fon the following five counts: Count I, Burglary in the First
Degree, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 708-810(2) (c) (1993) ;* Counts It and III, Robbery in the First

 

+ HRS § 708-810(1) states, in pertinent part, thal

(2) A person conits the offense of burglary in the first
degree if the person intentionally enters oF remains
unlawfully in @ building, with intent to commit therein a
erine against = person or against property rights, and:

 

ied

 
Degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840(2) (b) (ii) (1993 & Supp.
2004) ;? and Counts IV and V, Kidnapping, in violation of ERS
§ 707-720(2) (e) (1993).? On appeal, Rodrigues contends that:
(2) the trial court’s December 23, 2002 Findings of Fact (FOFs),
Conclusions of Law (Cols), and Decision were not supported by
substantial evidence because (a) they were based on unreliable
eyewitness identifications and (b) the evidence as a whole was
insufficient to convict him; and (2) the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his Motion to Reopen where he had newly
discovered evidence that could have exonerated him and implicated
another. OB at 17, 33.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we hold:

(1) there was sufficient evidence to support Rodrigues’

21. continued)
building ie the dwelling of another, and the building
fe euch a dwelling:

2 HRS § 708-840(1) states, in relevant part, that:

 

(2) A person commit the offense of robbery in the iret
Gegree if, in ehe course of committing theft:

ib} ‘The person is armed with a dangerous instrument
ands

isis" tne person threatens the iminent use of
force against the person of anyone who is
present with intent to compel acquiescence
fo the taking of oF eacsping with the
property,

 

> mas § 707-720(2) (e) states, in relevant part, that
(2) A person commits the offense of kidnapping if the
person intentionally or knowingly restrains ancther person
with intent tor

ie] Fetrorize that person or a third person{.)

“ae
conviction where (a) the eyewitness identifications were
sufficiently reliable under the five factors enunciated by the
United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Bicaers, 409 U.S. 188
(1972), and adopted by this court in State v. Padilla, 57 Haw.
150, 552 P.2d 387 (1976), and (b) the evidence as a whole was
sufficient to support the conviction when viewed in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, see State v, Batson, 73 Haw.
236, 248-45, 631 P.24 924, 931 (citations omitted),
reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992); and
(2) the Motion to Reopen was properly denied where the evidence
submitted did not meet the standard of being “relevant,
admissible, technically adequate, and helpful to the [trier of
fact) in ascertaining [the defendant’s] guilt or innocence.”
State v. Christian, 88 Hawai'i 407, 426, 967 P.2d 239, 258 (1998)
(quoting United states v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172, 1177 (sth cir.
1985). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial court’s September
10, 2004 judgment of convictions and sentence are affirmed

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 7, 2005.

on the briefe: oS
wittian A. Harrison; ro
Miensel to BSEESIO2’ coe onar ,
taetsto anal oon’ e Snisol Seba
see actendane epee lace

Nu Onuanan
James M. Anderson, e
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for plaintiff-appellee [Pe rN

Weve «. Boeri.