Court Opinion

ID: 9404937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 19:05:17.160555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:18.157649
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                              Electronically Filed
                                              Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                              CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                              26-JUN-2023
                                              08:20 AM
                                              Dkt. 47 SO
                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                        OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

                STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                  v.
                  JEFFREY DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant

         APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                           HONOLULU DIVISION
                      (CASE NO. 1DCC-XX-XXXXXXX)

                    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

            Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Diaz (Diaz) appeals from

the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (Judgment) filed in

the District Court of the First Circuit, Kane#ohe Division

(District Court), on September 22, 2022.1            After a bench trial,

Diaz was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1101 (2014) (Disorderly Conduct).2

     1
            The Honorable Sherri-Ann Iha presided.
     2
            HRS § 711-1101 provides, in relevant part:

                  § 711-1101 Disorderly Conduct. (1) A person commits
            the offense of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause
            physical inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of
            the public, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the
            person:
                  (a)   Engages in fighting or threatening, or in
                        violent or tumultuous behavior;
                  (b)   Makes unreasonable noise; [or]
                                                                (continued...)
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

            Diaz raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the

Judgment.

            Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Diaz's point of error as follows:

            When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal,

the court applies the following standard of review:
            [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 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.

State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)

(citations omitted).

            "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is

of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of

reasonable caution to support a conclusion."           Id.   In a bench

trial, the trial judge, as the trier of fact, "is free to make
all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in

     2
      (...continued)
                 . . . .
                  (d)   Creates a hazardous or physically offensive
                        condition by any act which is not performed
                        under any authorized license or permit[.]
                  . . . .
                  (2) Noise is unreasonable, within the meaning of
            subsection (1)(b), if considering the nature and purpose of
            the person's conduct and the circumstances known to the
            person, including the nature of the location and the time of
            the day or night, the person's conduct involves a gross
            deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding
            citizen would follow in the same situation; or the failure
            to heed the admonition of a police officer that the noise is
            unreasonable and should be stopped or reduced.

                                      2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

evidence, including circumstantial evidence."     State v. Batson,

73 Haw. 236, 249, 831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992) (citation omitted).

           Diaz argues that Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i

(State) failed to provide substantial evidence that Diaz

conducted himself in a manner that met the elements of Disorderly

Conduct.   The State agrees.

           Notwithstanding the State's confession of error,

"appellate courts have an independent duty 'first to ascertain

that the confession of error is supported by the record and

well-founded in law and second to determine that such error is

properly preserved and prejudicial.'"     State v. Veikoso, 102

Hawai#i 219, 221-22, 74 P.3d 575, 577-78 (2003) (quoting State v.

Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000)).

           The State charged Diaz with Disorderly Conduct,

specifically, violations of HRS § 711-1101 subsections (1)(a)

tumultuous behavior, (1)(b) unreasonable noise, and/or (1)(d)

creation of a hazardous or physically offensive condition.

           With respect to subsection (1)(a), "tumultuous

behavior" is defined as "as conduct involving violent agitation

or extreme outbursts. . . .    [A]n analysis of whether a

defendant's behavior was marked by extreme outbursts or violent

agitation requires the trier of fact to focus upon what the

defendant personally did, rather than how onlookers or observers

reacted in response."   State v. Teale, 139 Hawai#i 351, 357, 390

P.3d 1238, 1244 (2017) (footnote omitted).

           With respect to subsection (1)(b), "unreasonable noise"

is defined under HRS § 711-1101(2), in relevant part, as "a gross

                                  3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding citizen

would follow in the same situation."

            With respect to subsection (1)(d), HRS § 711-1101

commentary provides, in part:
                  Subsection (1)(d) is defined to include creation of a
            hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act not
            covered by any authorized license or permit. It would
            prohibit, for example, the use of a "stink bomb," strewing
            garbage or other noxious substances in public places, and
            turning off the lights in a public auditorium. Although
            there is some degree of overlap in some situations between
            this provision and § 708-828 (criminal use of noxious
            substances) and § 708-829 (criminal littering), subsection
            (1)(d) is needed to cover those cases of public annoyance
            where a private property owner does not wish to file a
            complaint or where title to property is not clear.

            The State presented testimony from Peter Keizer

(Keizer) and Police Officer Peter Krog (Officer Krog).

            Keizer testified that while at work about two minutes

from his home, he received a call from his wife, who was upset

because Diaz was "crawling on the ground and acting strange" near

their home.    Keizer further testified that upon returning home:
            My only observation was the banging sound across the street
            and seeing [Diaz] walk out from behind the vehicle and
            walking down the street. So that was my only visible
            interaction with him. I didn't see him actually banging on
            the car. I heard the sound.

                  . . . .
                  . . . Then the police came. They met with him and he
            was down the street. He sat on the curb as they talked with
            him.

            Officer Krog testified that he was called to the area

for "somebody screaming and acting crazy."          Upon arrival, he

observed:
            Diaz [was] walking past me shirtless and talking with his
            hands, gesturing. People were giving him a wide berth. I
            figured he was possibly the one. I interacted with him a
            lot of times, so might be him. So checked on him real
            quick.

                                      4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                I went down there to an area that there's a little
          Chinese restaurant across the street to Walgreens and street
          parking. And there was a car alarm going off on one of the
          cars fronting Walgreens.

          Officer Krog concluded that Diaz pounded on the doors

of the Chinese restaurant and car.       He then detained Diaz, and

after determining that there was no damage, issued Diaz a

citation for Disorderly Conduct.

          Even viewing the evidence most favorably to the State,

and recognizing that the trial judge may make reasonable

inferences, the record does not provide substantial evidence to

support a conclusion that Diaz engaged in conduct involving

violent agitation or extreme outbursts, noise in gross deviation

from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding citizen, and/or a

hazardous or physically offensive condition.         Thus, we conclude

that there was insufficient evidence to support the Judgment.

Diaz properly preserved the error by moving for acquittal during

trial and timely appealing from the Judgment.

          Therefore, the District Court's September 22, 2022

Judgment is reversed.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 26, 2023.

On the briefs:                          /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                        Presiding Judge
Tae W. Kim,
for Defendant-Appellant.                /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                        Associate Judge
Donn Fudo,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney             /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
City and County of Honolulu             Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

                                    5