Opinion ID: 2607891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of evidence of possession to sustain a verdict of guilty.

Text: The only evidence linking the defendant with the narcotics was the hand motions toward the top of and behind the washing machine. The officer testified that he did not know the significance of these motions and admitted that the defendant may have been plugging the machine into the wall socket. The mere presence of the defendant plus what the officer saw are not enough to measure up to the statutorily and constitutionally required standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of the narcotics. See HRS § 705-2; In Matter of Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). In short, the decision of the court as the finder of fact in the jury-waived trial on the question of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence. State v. Stuart, 51 Haw. 656, 466 P.2d 444 (1970); State v. Kekaualua, 50 Haw. 130, 433 P.2d 131 (1967). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. KABUTAN, Circuit Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. It seems to me that in this case there was clearly probable cause to arrest the defendant, that the incident search was reasonable, not wide-ranging or indiscriminate, and that there is substantial evidence in the record on which to base a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would affirm.