Court Opinion

ID: 9633186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:37:08.083529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:30.375541
License: Public Domain

*5DISSENTING OPINION OF
MARUMOTO, J.,
WITH WHOM ABE, J., JOINS
I dissent. This court reverses defendant’s conviction in this case on the ground that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire was kindled by other than natural or accidental means, and that “[t]he only proof submitted by the state to meet the burden, was evidence of the presence of debris in the washroom.”
The record shows more than that. The fire took place in a small four feet by seven feet room in a tenement building. It was one of the two rooms in the building containing toilet facilities.
The police officer, who investigated the fire, testified that the areas in the room where the electric wiring ran were not burned at all. From that testimony, the trial court concluded that the fire was not caused by any short-circuiting in the electric wiring system.
The testimony of the officer showed the following: five pieces of three-inch wide boards were burned from floor to ceiling; the toilet seat was also burned; the top of the porcelain water tank was blackened; items which could have been used to start the fire were spread on the floor in front of the toilet. The trial court concluded from that testimony that the fire was of incendiary origin.
The caretaker of the building testified that he saw the fire in the room and defendant walking out of the room, “Just like nothing business, just keep on walking.”
A tenant of the building testified to the same effect, his testimony being as follows:
“Q. Now, while you were putting out the fire, pioing the fire, did you see Duprie around?1
“A. Yeah; this man stop.
“Q. Was he helping you folks putting out the fire?
“A. No.”
In finding defendant guilty, the trial court stated: “Defen*6dant, when seen, certainly didn’t express any concern for the fire; expressing concern for the fire would be normal. It is grossly abnormal that he did not express concern. I think it is also grossly inordinate that he would step into the bathroom when the bathroom is that small, when a fire that size is going on at that time that it is not necessary for him to step into the bathroom to see that fire.”
I think that the evidence in the record is sufficient for affirmance of the conviction under the substantial evidence test set forth in State v. Kekaualua, 50 Haw. 130, 433 P.2d 131 (1967), and State v. Rocker, 52 Haw. 336, 475 P.2d 684 (1970).

Pio is a Hawaiian word which means extinguishing a fire.