Opinion ID: 2764248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: A person commits the offense of prostitution if he or she “[p]ays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay a fee to another to engage in sexual conduct.” HRS § 712-1200(1)(b). In this case, the State adduced evidence that Monteil responded to Sgt. Taniyama’s online advertisement in which the officer portrayed 17 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER an escort named “SiN.” The email conversations between Monteil and “SiN” were replete with sexual innuendo,5 and at several times during the conversation, Monteil expressed concern about whether “SiN” was involved in law enforcement.6 Ultimately, Monteil asked “SiN” for a “GFE experience for an hour or two” and offered to pay $300.00 for such experience. After reaching an agreement with “SiN” to pay $300.00 for “GFE,” Monteil arranged a date, time and location to meet “SiN,” and he followed through with those plans. Sgt. Taniyama and Monteil both testified as to the meaning of “GFE.” Sgt. Taniyama explained the term “GFE” was vernacular in the internet escort community for “girlfriend experience,” which in turn meant to have sex with another without the use of contraceptives. Monteil testified he did not know what “GFE” meant in the context of prostitution; he asserted that “GFE” means “good faith estimate” in the real 5 For example, “SiN” made several sexually suggestive comments to Monteil: 1) he needs to “book [her] now or miss the greatest ride on earth,” 2) she “played a naughty cop many times,” 3) she “can’t wait to get [her] hands on [him],” and 4) she “will let [Monteil] know where to cum.” Additionally, in response to “SiN’s” comment that she “taste[d] as good as she look[ed]” in her ad, Monteil told “SiN” that 1) he specialized in “tasting competitions,” 2) he would taste her “until there’s no more to taste,” and 3) he guaranteed that she would “experience” the “tasting.” 6 When “SiN” initially asked what “kind of party” he wanted, Monteil was resistant to answering on email, “Do i really need to say on e- mail . . . .” Monteil then asked whether or not “SiN” was in any “law enforcement group.” On the day that Monteil was scheduled to meet with “SiN,” Monteil again asked “SiN” if she was “associated with any law enforcement.” 18 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER estate context and that “GFEE” means “good fun everywhere experience” in the hotel industry. In its oral ruling, the district court expressly relied on Sgt. Taniyama’s testimony in finding “GFE” constituted sexual conduct; by contrast, the judge noted Monteil’s testimony regarding the term “GFE” was inconsistent and contradictory. The sexual nature of the email conversation between Monteil and “SiN” further supports Sgt. Taniyama’s contention that “GFE” constitutes sexual conduct. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the totality of the evidence—including the email conversation, Sgt. Taniyama’s testimony,7 and Monteil’s subsequent actions— constitutes substantial evidence that Monteil contacted “SiN” to solicit sexual conduct. Thus, the ICA did not err in concluding the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain Monteil’s conviction for prostitution. 7 The ICA has previously relied on police testimony to discern the meaning of colloquial words, phrases, or other types of street vernacular. State v. Connally, 79 Hawai#i 123, 127, 899 P.2d 406, 410 (App. 1995) (affirming the defendant’s conviction for prostitution based, in part, on the officer’s testimony that the defendant’s question in Japanese to the Japanese male tourists, “Would you like to play?” was the street vernacular equivalent to “Would you like to have sex?”). 19 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER