Opinion ID: 2516950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Collision Requirement and Bayly's Argument

Text: Under the result element of HRS § 291-12, the prosecution must prove that there was a collision, that a person was injured, or that property was damaged. As no evidence of property damage or personal injury was presented at trial, this case hinges on the evidence of a collision. In his application, Bayly argues that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Bayly collided with any person, vehicle, or other property. Bayly does not deny that his truck came into contact with the concrete parking lot surface. Rather, Bayly argues that this incidental contact [did not] constitute[ ] a `collision.' Notably, the district court made no findings with respect to this element of the inattention to driving charge. [14] The ICA, in its SDO, treated the issue as follows: As to the third element, the State adduced sufficient evidence of a collision between the bottom of Bayly's truck and the concrete parking lot surface to sustain Bayly's conviction. State v. Williams, 114 Hawai'i 406, 410, 163 P.3d 1143, 1147 (2007) (the vehicle must nevertheless `collide' with another object). ICA's SDO at 3. In its brief to the ICA, the prosecution argued that Bayly's operation of his truck resulted in a collision between his vehicle and the surface of the parking lot, based on Officer Hada's testimony that the bottom frame of Bayly's truck was touching the concrete parking lot surface. According to the prosecution, it could reasonably be inferred that the bottom frame of [Bayly's] truck collided with the parking lot surface when it went over the edge of the parking lot. The prosecution also noted that the bottom frame of a truck is not a portion of the vehicle that normally comes into contact with the ground, as the truck's tires usually keep the body above ground level.