NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000441

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

FRANCIS HUNT, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION

(CASE NO. 1DTC-18-033737)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Ginoza, C.J., and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Francis Hunt (Hunt) appeals from

the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment

(Judgment), entered on May 16, 2019, in the District Court of the

First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1/ Following a

bench trial, Hunt was convicted of Operating a Vehicle After

License and Privilege Have Been Suspended or Revoked for

Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVLPSROVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E62(a)(1) and (a)(2) (Supp. 2017), and was sentenced pursuant to

HRS § 291E-62(c)(3).2/

1/ The Honorable Harlan Y. Kimura presided.

2/ HRS § 291E-62 provides, in relevant part:

§ 291E-62 Operating a vehicle after license and

privilege have been suspended or revoked for operating a

vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant; penalties. 

(a) No person whose license and privilege to operate a

vehicle have been revoked, suspended, or otherwise

restricted pursuant to this section or to part III or

section 291E-61 or 291E-61.5, or to part VII or part XIV of

chapter 286 or section 200-81, 291-4, 291-4.4, 291-4.5, or

291-7 as those provisions were in effect on December 31,

2001, shall operate or assume actual physical control of any

(continued...)

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000441

13-APR-2021

08:03 AM

Dkt. 45 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Hunt contends that: (1) the District Court

erred in admitting Exhibits 1 and 2, which are certified copies

of judgments of conviction entered in Case Nos. 1DTC-14-045515

and 1DTA-17-03246, respectively (also collectively referred to as

the Prior Judgments); and (2) there was insufficient evidence

that Hunt acted with the requisite state of mind, because the

State failed to adduce substantial evidence that Hunt had notice

(a) that his license had been revoked, (b) that the revocation

was pursuant to Part III of HRS Chapter 291E or HRS § 291E-62,

and (c) of the dates of the revocation period. 

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant

legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues

raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve

Hunt's contentions as follows.

(1) Hunt argues that the District Court erred in

admitting Exhibits 1 and 2, because their admission violated his

rights to confrontation and due process under the United States

2/ (...continued)

vehicle:

(1) In violation of any restrictions placed on the

person's license;

(2) While the person's license or privilege to

operate a vehicle remains suspended or revoked;

. . . .

(c) Any person convicted of violating this section

shall be sentenced as follows without possibility of

probation or suspension of sentence:

. . . . 

(3) For an offense that occurs within five years of

two or more prior convictions for offenses under

this section, section 291E-66, or section

291-4.5 as that section was in effect on

December 31, 2001, or any combination thereof:

(A) One year imprisonment;

(B) A $2,000 fine;

(C) Permanent revocation of the person's

license and privilege to operate a

vehicle; and

(D) Loss of the privilege to operate a vehicle

equipped with an ignition interlock

device, if applicable.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

and Hawai#i Constitutions, and the exhibits "lacked the necessary

foundation to be relevant and admissible in the case." Regarding

the latter assertion, Hunt contends there was no "live in court

testimony" to establish that he was the same person named in the

Prior Judgments. 

Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the Notice of Entry of

Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, filed by the District

Court of the First Circuit, #Ewa Division, on November 26, 2014,

in Case No. 1DTC-14-045515 (also referred to as Prior Judgment

One). Prior Judgment One reflects that "Francis Hunt" was

convicted of OVLPSR-OVUII, in violation of HRS § 291E-62(a)(1)

and (a)(2). 

Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of the Notice of Entry of

Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, filed by the District

Court of the First Circuit, Wai#anae Division, on February 26,

2018, in Case No. 1DTA-17-03246 (also referred to as Prior

Judgment Two). Prior Judgment Two reflects that "Francis Hunt"

was convicted in Count 1 of Operating a Vehicle Under the

Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of HRS § 291E61(a)(1), and in Count 2 of OVLPSR-OVUII, in violation of HRS

§ 291E-62(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

At trial, the State requested the admission of Exhibits

1 and 2 as "sealed public record[s]" under Hawaii Rules of

Evidence (HRE) Rules 803(b)(8)3/ and 902(1),4/ as follows:

3/ HRE Rule 803 provides, in relevant part:

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even

though the declarant is available as a witness:

. . . .

(b) Other exceptions.

. . . .

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports,

statements, or data compilations, in any form,

of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A)

the activities of the office or agency, or (B)

matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law

as to which matters there was a duty to report,

excluding, however, in criminal cases matters

observed by police officers and other law

enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil

proceedings and against the government in

(continued...)

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

[DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (DPA)]: Your honor, at

this time the State would move to enter State's -- what has

been marked for identification purposes as State's Exhibit 1

as a public record, as a sealed public record under Hawaii

Rules of Evidence 902(1) and Hawaii Rule of Evidence 803(8). 

Or, apologies, (b)(8). It's a certified copy of the

judgment in case 1DTC-14-045515. 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And, judge, defense initially

would object as to lack of foundation. 

THE COURT: Mr. [DPA], it is a certified copy?

[DPA]: It is a certified court document, your honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. 

. . . .

[DPA]: The State would also move what has been marked

as State's Exhibit 2 into evidence under the same rules of

evidence. This is a certified court document. It is a

certified copy of the judgment in case 1DTA-17-03246.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And just renewed objection on the

same grounds, judge. 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. [DPA], did you show that to --

Exhibit 2 to [Defense Counsel]? 

[Exhibits shown to Defense Counsel]

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Yeah, that's fine.

THE COURT: Okay. So Exhibit 2 is also admitted into

evidence over objections of the defendant.

Thus, Hunt objected to the admission of Exhibit 1 "as to lack of

foundation," and stated a "renewed objection on the same grounds"

as to Exhibit 2. 

3/ (...continued)

criminal cases, factual findings resulting from

an investigation made pursuant to authority

granted by law, unless the sources of

information or other circumstances indicate lack

of trustworthiness.

4/ HRE Rule 902(1) provides:

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent

to admissibility is not required with respect to the

following:

(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A

document bearing a seal purporting to be that of

the United States, or of any state, district,

commonwealth, territory, or insular possession

thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust

Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a

political subdivision, department, officer, or

agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be

an attestation or execution.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

"[A] 'lack of foundation' objection generally is

insufficient to preserve foundational issues for appeal because

such an objection does not advise the trial court of the problems

with the foundation." State v. Long, 98 Hawai#i 348, 353, 48

P.3d 595, 600 (2002). "[A]n exception is recognized when the

objection is overruled and, based on the context, it is evident

what the general objection was meant to convey." Id. 

Here, Hunt objected to the admission of Exhibits 1 and

2 "as to lack of foundation," following the State's request that

these exhibits be admitted as "sealed public record[s]" under HRE

Rules 803(b)(8) and 902(1). In this context, Hunt's objection

could reasonably have been construed as challenging the

evidentiary foundation for concluding that the exhibits were

"public records" or "domestic public documents under seal," as

required by the relevant rules. Hunt did not object to admission

of the exhibits based on his rights to confrontation and due

process or on relevance grounds — even after he was given an

opportunity to review the exhibits. We conclude that, based on

the context of Hunt's "lack of foundation" objections, it was not

"evident" that he meant to convey additional objections based on

constitutional or relevance grounds. Long, 98 Hawai#i at 353, 48

P.3d at 600; see also State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 55, 760 P.2d 670,

675 (1988) ("Fairness to the trial court impels a recitation in

full of the grounds supporting an objection to the introduction

of inadmissible matters." (citing S & W Crane Serv., Inc. v.

Berard, 53 Haw. 161, 164, 489 P.2d 419, 421 (1971))). 

After the State rested its case, Hunt orally moved for

a judgment of acquittal, belatedly arguing that the admission of

Exhibits 1 and 2 violated his right to confrontation. This

evidentiary objection was untimely and, therefore, this basis for

appeal was waived. See HRE Rule 103(a); State v. Villena, No.

CAAP-13-0000030, 2015 WL 2451726, at *2 (Haw. App. May 19, 2015)

(SDO); State v. Lawhead, No. 29019, 2009 WL 796331, at *2 (Haw.

App. Mar. 27, 2009) (SDO) (citing Lee v. Elbaum, 77 Hawai#i 446,

452-53, 887 P.2d 656, 662-63 (App. 1993)). Accordingly, we

conclude that Hunt's point of error was waived to the extent he

now argues that the admission of Exhibits 1 and 2 violated his

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

rights to confrontation and due process, and that these exhibits

lacked relevance.

Furthermore, the record does not support Hunt's

argument that there was no evidence to establish that he was the

person named in the Prior Judgments. Prior Judgment One

includes, inter alia, the following information: case name,

"State v. Francis Hunt"; case and citation/report number, "1DTC14-045515"; date, "11/26/2014"; vehicle plate number; and

violation section, "HRS 291E-62(a)(1)(2)(b)(1)." This

information matches the corresponding information on Exhibit 5,

which is "a certified copy of [Hunt's] traffic abstract bearing

the birth date and last four [digits] of the Social Security

number of [Hunt]," and which was admitted into evidence without

objection.5/ Similarly, Prior Judgment Two, includes, inter alia,

the following information: case name, "State v. Francis Hunt";

case number, "1DTA-17-03246"; citation/report numbers, "17306587-

001" and "17306587-002"; date, "02/26/2018"; violation section,

"HRS 291E-61(a)(1)(b)(2)" designated "Count 1"; and violation

section, "HRS 291E-62(a)(1)(2)(c)(2)" designated "Count 2." This

information matches the corresponding information on Exhibit 5. 

Exhibit 5 also lists the present case, including, inter alia, the

following information: case name, "State v. Francis Hunt"; case

and citation number, "1DTC-18-033737"; and "HRS § 291E62(a)(1)(2)(c)(3)" listed as the violation in "Count 1." Thus,

the State, through Exhibit 5 and the testimony of Deputy

Umiamaka, established that the person named in the Prior

Judgments was Hunt.6/ See State v. Davis, 133 Hawai#i 102, 120,

5/ At trial in the present case, Deputy Sheriff Robert Umiamaka

(Deputy Umiamaka) testified that on October 18, 2018, he stopped Hunt's

vehicle for a traffic infraction. Deputy Umiamaka requested Hunt's driver's

license, registration, and proof of insurance. Hunt did not provide a

driver's license, so Deputy Umiamaka asked for identification. Hunt provided

a "Hawaii ID," which stated, among other things, Hunt's date of birth. Hunt

verbally told Deputy Umiamaka the last four digits of Hunt's Social Security

number. Based on Deputy Umiamaka's testimony, the birth date and last four

digits of the Social Security number that appear on Exhibit 5 are the same as

the corresponding information that Hunt provided to Deputy Umiamaka. 

6/ On appeal, Hunt does not argue that Exhibits 1 and 2 were not

admissible as public records or were not properly authenticated. Such

arguments are thus deemed waived. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 28(b)(7).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

324 P.3d 912, 930 (2014). Accordingly, the District Court did

not err in admitting Exhibits 1 and 2.

(2) Hunt argues there was insufficient evidence that he

acted with the requisite state of mind, because "the State failed

to present any evidence that Hunt was given notice of the

ADLRO's7/ decision to revoke his license or that Hunt knew a court

had suspended his license pursuant to Part III of HRS Chapter

291E8/ or HRS § 291E-62." (Footnotes added.) Relatedly, Hunt

contends that "the State did not present any evidence that Hunt

was aware of the duration of the revocation period." 

The Hawai#i Supreme Court has long held:

[E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in

the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate

court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to

support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the

case was before a judge or a jury. The test on appeal is

not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt,

but whether there was substantial evidence to support the

conclusion of the trier of fact. Indeed, even if it could

be said in a bench trial that the conviction is against the

weight of the evidence, as long as there is substantial

evidence to support the requisite findings for conviction,

the trial court will be affirmed.

"Substantial evidence" as to every material

element of the offense charged is credible evidence

which is of sufficient quality and probative value to

enable a person of reasonable caution to support a

conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is

free to make all reasonable and rational inferences

under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial

evidence.

State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 248-49, 831 P.2d 924, 931

(1992).

State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31

(2007) (brackets omitted).

The state of mind required to establish an offense

under HRS § 291E-62(a)(1) or (a)(2) is not specified and,

therefore, is established if a person acts intentionally,

knowingly, or recklessly. HRS § 702-204 (2014). "A person acts

recklessly with respect to attendant circumstances when he

consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that

7/ ADLRO refers to the Administrative Driver's License Revocation

Office.

8/ Part III of HRS Chapter 291E governs the administrative revocation

process.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

such circumstances exist." HRS § 702-206(3)(b) (2014). 

A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning

of this section if, considering the nature and purpose of

the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, the

disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the

standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe

in the same situation.

HRS § 702-206(3)(d) (2014). 

Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences

arising from the evidence of a defendant's acts, conduct, and all

of the circumstances may be sufficient to establish the requisite

state of mind. See, e.g., State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai#i 131, 141,

913 P.2d 57, 67 (1996).

We reject Hunt's contention that there was insufficient

evidence that he acted with the requisite state of mind to

support his conviction. HRS § 291E-62(a) states in relevant

part:

No person whose license and privilege to operate a

vehicle have been revoked, suspended, or otherwise

restricted pursuant to this section . . . . shall

operate or assume actual physical control of any

vehicle: (1) [i]n violation of any restrictions

placed on the person's license; [or] (2) [w]hile the

person's license or privilege to operate a vehicle

remains suspended or revoked[.]

(Formatting altered.) The State was thus required to prove only

that Hunt had a reckless state of mind regarding whether his

license remained suspended or revoked on October 18, 2018, the

date of the OVLPSR–OVUII charge in this case.

Here, Prior Judgment Two shows that on February 26,

2018, Hunt (see supra) was convicted of OVLPSR-OVUII for

violating HRS § 291E-62(a)(1) and (a)(2), and was sentenced to,

among other things, a one-year license suspension.9/ Each page of

Prior Judgment Two bears a cursive signature at the bottom, next

to the words, "Hunt, Francis[,] Def's Signature."10/ In addition,

9/ Exhibit 5 similarly lists "LS - Driver License Suspended 1

Year(s)" as part of Hunt's February 26, 2018 sentence on Count 2, "HRS [§]

291E-62(a)(1)(2)(c)(2)," in Case No. 1DTA-17-03246. 

10/ At trial in the present case, during Hunt's oral motion for

judgment of acquittal, defense counsel argued as to Exhibit 1: "I would

direct the court's attention to the bottom left of the form where there is no

signature by any defendant; that is left blank." Similarly, during his

closing argument, defense counsel stated: "[J]udge, one of these documents,

specifically the one from 2014, does not bear the signature of a defendant

(continued...)

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

based on Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 4311/ and the

face of Prior Judgment Two, which does not indicate that Hunt's

presence was waived (i.e., the box next to "Waived Presence of

Defendant" is not checked, though other boxes are), it appears

that Hunt was present in court for sentencing. Indeed, the

minutes of the February 26, 2018 hearing, which are reflected in

Exhibit 5, indicate Hunt's presence. Exhibit 2, along with the

history of Hunt's offenses and convictions documented in Exhibit

5, as well as the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from

these exhibits, constitute substantial evidence that Hunt had a

reckless state of mind regarding whether his license remained

suspended or revoked on October 18, 2018, when he was stopped by

Deputy Umiamaka. Accordingly, we conclude that the State

produced sufficient evidence to establish that Hunt acted with a

reckless state of mind in driving while his license remained

suspended or revoked for OVLPSR-OVUII. See Davis, 133 Hawai#i at

122-23, 324 P.3d at 932-33. 

Hunt further contends that the District Court erred in

relying on Exhibits 1 through 5 "to establish that Hunt's

driver's license was suspended on October 18, 2018 pursuant to

Part III of HRS Chapter 291E or HRS § 291E-62 and that he had

prior convictions of HRS § 291E-62 mandating an enhanced sentence

because the State failed to introduce any evidence to identify

. . . Hunt as the same individual as listed in the exhibits." We

disagree. We ruled above that the State established that the

person named in Exhibits 1 and 2, the Prior Judgments, was Hunt. 

Exhibit 3 is a certified copy of the Notice of Administrative

Review Decision of the ADLRO, dated June 10, 2015, which bears

Hunt's name and the last four digits of his Social Security

number. This information matches the corresponding information

10/ (...continued)

. . . ." Defense counsel did not make the same argument as to Exhibit 2,

i.e., he did not deny that Hunt signed Prior Judgment Two.

11/ HRPP Rule 43(a) states: "The defendant shall be present at the

arraignment, at the time of the plea, at evidentiary pretrial hearings, at

every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return

of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise

provided by this Rule." HRPP Rule 43(d) allows a defendant's presence to be

waived for non-felony offenses in certain proceedings, but none of the

exceptions apply to Hunt in this circumstance. 

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

on Exhibit 5. Similarly, Exhibit 4 is a certified copy of the

Notice of Administrative Review Decision of the ADLRO, dated

August 22, 2017, which bears Hunt's name and the last four digits

of his Social Security number. This information also matches the

corresponding information on Exhibit 5. We conclude that the

State established that Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 pertained to Hunt.

We also reject Hunt's contention that in convicting

Hunt, the District court improperly relied on Exhibits 3 and 4

"to establish Hunt's driver's license was suspended pursuant to

Part III of HRS Chapter 291E or HRS § 291E-62." At trial, the

State offered Exhibits 3 and 4 into evidence "not . . . as notice

that [Hunt] received th[ese] document[s,] but that [Hunt's]

license had been revoked under th[ese] decision[s]." Defense

counsel responded: "And given those limited purposes, no

objection, your honor." In finding Hunt guilty of OVLPSR-OVUII,

the District Court stated in relevant part: 

I've reviewed all the evidence as well as the Exhibits 1

though 5. And according to HRS 291E-62, it provides that

Mr. Hunt was not permitted to drive and operate a motor

vehicle if -- while his license was suspended, and according

to Exhibits 3 and 4, his license was suspended.

Thus, the District Court cited Exhibits 3 and 4 for the limited

purpose for which they were admitted. This was not error.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of

Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, entered on

May 16, 2019, in the District Court of the First Circuit,

Honolulu Division, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 13, 2021.

On the briefs:

Taryn R. Tomasa,

Deputy Public Defender,

for Defendant-Appellant.

Donn Fudo,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

City & County of Honolulu,

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

10