Opinion ID: 1199850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Silva first claims that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to support his conviction of assault in the first degree. On appeal, the test for a claim of insufficient evidence is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. State v. Ildefonso, 72 Haw. 573, 576, 827 P.2d 648, 651 (1992); State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636, 637, 633 P.2d 1115, 1117 (1981). `It matters not if a conviction under the evidence as so considered might be deemed to be against the weight of the evidence so long as there is substantial evidence tending to support the requisite findings for the conviction.' Ildefonso, 72 Haw. at 576-77, 827 P.2d at 651 (quoting Tamura, 63 Haw. at 637, 633 P.2d at 1117). `Substantial evidence' ... is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a [person] of reasonable caution to reach a conclusion.' See id. at 577, 827 P.2d at 651 (quoting State v. Naeole, 62 Haw. 563, 565, 617 P.2d 820, 823 (1980)). State v. Matias, 74 Haw. 197, 207, 840 P.2d 374, 379 (1993). Silva's sole argument on the sufficiency issue is that the prosecution misconstrued the first degree assault statute, and that, as a result, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to convict him under the statute. Silva contends that the prosecution's sole piece of evidence regarding the serious bodily injury element of HRS § 707-710 was the stipulated testimony of Dr. Behrendt that the injuries to Audrey Simpson created a protracted loss or impairment of function of Mr. Simpson's right eye, a bodily member or organ[.] We note that Dr. Behrendt's stipulated testimony specifically tracked the language of HRS § 707-700, which defines serious bodily injury as bodily injury... which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.  (Emphasis added.) Silva argues that the word serious in the definition is meant to modify both permanent disfigurement and protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Silva maintains that, because Dr. Behrendt's stipulated testimony stated only that Simpson had suffered a protracted loss or impairment of his right eye and not a serious protracted loss or impairment, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence at trial to convict him under HRS § 707-710. We disagree. First, it is clear from the plain phrasing of the applicable statutory definition that the word serious modifies only the first phrase  permanent disfigurement  and not the second phrase beginning with protracted loss. Additionally, simple logic dictates that the word serious is only meant to modify the first phrase and not the second. According to the Random House College Dictionary 380 (1979), a disfigurement is, in relevant part, something that disfigures, as a scar, while to disfigure is to mar the effect or excellence of. Id. Therefore, it follows that even a small but noticeable scar on a person's face, for example, is a disfigurement. However, such a scar would certainly not qualify as a serious bodily injury under the statutory definition nor should it. Serious is defined in the dictionary as giving cause for apprehension; critical. Id. at 1202. Conversely, a large, permanent scar on a person's face from the corner of the eye to the jaw, for example, would clearly be considered serious bodily injury under the statutory definition. Moreover, the addition of the modifier serious would add nothing to the second applicable phrase other than redundancy. By its very nature, a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ is a serious injury. Member is relevantly defined by the Random House College Dictionary as a limb ... a leg, arm, or wing. Id. at 833. It is incomprehensible that the protracted loss or impairment of a leg, an arm, or an eye, as in the present case, could be anything but serious. It is self-evident that Dr. Behrendt's stipulated testimony that Simpson suffered a protracted loss or impairment of his right eye was credible evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to assist a jury in reaching a conclusion. See Matias, 74 Haw. at 207, 840 P.2d at 379. The testimony thus constituted substantial evidence. Accordingly, we hold that Dr. Behrendt's stipulated testimony was sufficient evidence to convict Silva of assault in the first degree.