Court Opinion

ID: 9571039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:28:40.543614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:50.378943
License: Public Domain

*470CONCURRING OPINION OF
ABE, J.
My basic disagreement with the rest of the court is that I presume that mechanical devices, like clocks and speedometers, are accurate, absent proof to the contrary, while they conclude that the accuracy of the officer’s speedometer must be proven by positive evidence.
Under the rule enunciated by this court in this case, where an act becomes an offense depending on the time of day, such as prohibited parking on a street between certain hours of the day, how is the police officer to show that the offense alleged occurred at that particular hour of the day according to Hawaiian Standard Time, except by his watch or a clock or timepiece near by? Then, how is he to prove that the time shown on the timepiece was the accurate Hawaiian Standard Time?
In this case, if I believed that proof of the accuracy of the officer’s speedometer were necessary, I would acquit the defendant. I would not exacerbate the business records exception to the hearsay rule by admitting any writing prepared by anyone which this court feels is trustworthy.
And I would not duck the right to confrontation issue by conjecturing that “cross-examination of the mechanic would be of small utility ... to the appellant.”