State v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 16 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 26234.,26234. |
| Citation | 129 P.3d 1144 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis STANLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
John H. Murphy, on the briefs, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tracy Murakami, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Kaua`i, on the briefs, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Louis Stanley (Stanley) appeals from the Judgment filed on January 27, 2004 in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit, Hanalei Division (district court).1 After a bench trial, the district court found Stanley guilty of Violation of Restraining Order or Injunction Against Harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5(h) (Supp.2004).2 The district court sentenced Stanley to a term of imprisonment of five days and to probation for one year.
On appeal,3 Stanley contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (2) the district court erred in (a) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, (b) denying his motion to limit and strike testimony pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) 404(b), and (c) allowing the State to "re-call" a witness on rebuttal.
On July 20, 2001, an "Order Amending Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment Filed on August 9, 2000, and Granting Mutual Restraining Order Against Harassment" (Restraining Order) was filed in the district court. Stanley and Gary Ziegler4 stipulated to the mutual Restraining Order, which became effective on August 9, 2000 for a period of three years.
The Restraining Order stated in relevant part:
3(b). The Petitioner(s) [Stanley] and any other person acting on behalf of the Petitioner(s) are hereby restrained and enjoined from:
1. contacting, threatening, or physically harassing Respondent(s) [Ziegler] and/or any person(s) residing at Respondent's residence;
2. telephoning the Respondent(s);
3. entering and/or visiting the premises, including yard, and garage of the Respondent's residence and place of employment.
On February 20, 2002, Stanley was charged by complaint with intentionally or knowingly violating the Restraining Order for an incident that occurred on or about December 22, 2001 involving Ziegler. What occurred during the incident is in dispute.
At trial on September 10, 2003, Ziegler testified that on December 22, 2001, he was driving to the Hanalei Dolphin Restaurant/Fish Market when he saw Stanley's car pulling out of the parking lot of the Hanalei Dolphin. Ziegler testified that Stanley had his window down and was "hanging out the window flipping me off, yelling at me and then he peeled out and shot gravel all over my truck as he left." By "flipping me off," Ziegler meant "showing [Ziegler] the middle finger." Ziegler testified that Stanley looked right at him and yelled "[f]uck you, you asshole." The incident lasted about "three to four seconds."
Ziegler testified that he "wasn't happy about [Stanley's conduct]," but he "tried to keep everything cool." Ziegler did nothing in response. Ziegler testified that he "laugh[s] off whatever Mr. Stanley does basically" and does not "get angry with it." After the incident, Ziegler called the police and reported what had happened. Ziegler confirmed that everything he testified to occurred on "this island" (Kaua`i).
After Ziegler testified, Stanley moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to meet its burden of proof that Stanley violated HRS § 604-10.5 because Stanley did not physically harass, threaten, or contact Ziegler. The State countered that even though there was not physical contact between Stanley and Ziegler, there was still contact that was threatening or harassing to Ziegler. The district court denied Stanley's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Stanley testified that Ziegler was the one who had harassed him. He testified that on December 22, 2001, as he was leaving the Hanalei Dolphin, he was waiting in his pickup truck to turn left onto Kuhio Highway when he saw Ziegler approaching in Ziegler's car. When Ziegler saw Stanley, Ziegler pulled his vehicle next to Stanley's car and stopped. Ziegler had his window rolled down. Stanley's windows were up. Stanley testified that Ziegler "started laughing at me, flipped me off and said he wants to fight, said fuck you." Stanley did not give Ziegler "the finger" or say or do anything. Stanley testified that he waited for the cars to pass on Kuhio Highway and then drove left. Stanley called the police about half an hour later.
On cross-examination, the State questioned Stanley:
Q [State] And you, when you saw Mr. Ziegler, you felt like, oh, here we go again?
A [Stanley] I didn't feel anything. I don't, I see him, I just — I see him, that's all.
Q You don't do anything when you see Mr. Ziegler on the highway?
A No, I don't.
Q You don't roll out, or roll down your window and stick your head out and yell at him?
(Emphasis added.) Stanley objected, claiming the questioning was irrelevant. The district court overruled his objection.
The State continued its cross-examination of Stanley, asking, "So, Mr. Stanley, you never did roll down your window, lean out, yell, stick the finger at Mr. Ziegler, you never do that?" (Emphasis added.) Stanley again objected, claiming the question was vague as to time and "if it's any other time other than this time, then it's irrelevant." The district court overruled the objection.
The State continued to question Stanley:
Q [State] Prior to this incident, December 22nd, 2001, you never did that to Mr. Ziegler when you saw him on the roadways?
A [Stanley] No, I did not.
Q So, your testimony would be that even after this incident, you never done that to Mr. Ziegler, correct?
(Emphasis added.) Stanley objected that the questions were irrelevant. The district court overruled the objection and allowed the questions for the purpose of testing the witness's credibility under HRE Rule 608.
Ziegler testified on rebuttal. The State questioned Ziegler:
Q [State] Okay. This incident, the December 22nd, 2001, prior to this incident, you've passed Mr.... Stanley on the highway here in Hanalei, correct?
A [Ziegler] Yes, I have, and in Haena, yes.
Q And when you pass each other on the highway, is your driver's side window down or up?
(Emphasis added.) Stanley objected to the questioning, arguing it was unduly time-consuming and also violated HRE Rule 404 because the questioning concerned a prior bad act, which cannot be used to show action in conformity therewith unless notice in advance of trial has been given or unless during trial good cause is shown. The district court sustained the objection for "the purposes of any intended prior acts usage," but allowed the testimony for impeachment purposes. The State continued asking Ziegler about prior instances in which Ziegler had passed Stanley along the highways or roads in Hanalei. The district court allowed Stanley to have a "running objection" as irrelevant and unduly time consuming to the line of questioning.
During recross-examination, Ziegler testified that at least a half dozen times during the last two and one-half years when Stanley passed him on the road, Stanley would hang out his window, flip Ziegler off, and yell and scream at him. Ziegler testified that at the prior court hearing he told his attorney about the incidents and gave his attorney a picture of Stanley "doing it."
Stanley objected and moved to strike Ziegler's testimony regarding the picture as a violation of HRE 404(b) because the State had not disclosed the information to the defense. The prosecutor stated that Ziegler had given the photograph to the State in July 2003. The district court did not allow the picture into evidence because "it was not timely tendered to the defense" under HRE Rule 404(b) and the State did not show good cause "for not providing [the picture] as additional discovery to the defendant." However, the district court denied Stanley's request to strike Ziegler's testimony.
The parties stipulated that if Stanley testified again on rebuttal, he would dispute all of the testimony given on rebuttal by Ziegler.
The district court found the testimony of Ziegler regarding the events on December 22, 2001, credible; that, based on Ziegler's testimony, Stanley's conduct constituted contact prohibited by the Restraining Order; and the State met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court found Stanley guilty as charged. Stanley timely appealed.
The standard of review on appeal for sufficiency of the evidence is substantial evidence.
We have long held that evidence 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 a 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. Indeed, even if it could be said in a bench trial that the conviction is against the weight of the evidence, as long as there is substantial evidence to support the requisite findings for conviction, the trial court will be affirmed.
"Substantial evidence" as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
State v. Pone, 78 Hawai`i 262, 265, 892 P.2d 455, 458 (1995)[.]
State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai`i 131, 135, 913 P.2d 57, 61 (1996) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Su
...right/wrong standard.An example of the erroneous admission of irrelevant specific instances of conduct occurred in State v. Stanley, 110 Hawai‘i 116, 129 P.3d 1144 (App. 2005). There, the ICA concluded that the trial court erred in allowing defense counsel to cross-examine the complaining w......
-
State v. Su
...standard. An example of the erroneous admission of irrelevant specific instances of conduct occurred in State v. Stanley, 110 Hawai'i 116, 129 P.3d 1144 (App. 2005). There, the ICA concluded that the trial court erred in allowing defense counsel to cross-examine the complaining witness abou......
-
State v. Wilhelm
...on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence, for this is the province of the fact-finder. State v. Stanley, 110 Hawai‘i 116, 124, 129 P.3d 1144, 1152 (App.2005) (quoting State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai‘i 244, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999) ). “The prosecution disproves a justi......
-
State v. Wilhelm
...on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence, for this is the province of the fact-finder. State v. Stanley, 110 Hawai'i 116, 124, 129 P.3d 1144, 1152 (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai'i 244, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999)). "The prosecution disproves a justi......