State v. Matavale
| Decision Date | 14 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 27476.,27476. |
| Citation | 166 P.3d 322 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Ijeva MATAVALE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Stephen K. Tsushima (also on the brief), Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent-appellee.
1
On December 21, 2006, we accepted petitioner/defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Ijeva Matavale's (Mother) timely application for writ of certiorari (application), filed on November 27, 2006, requesting that this court review the August 29, 2006 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to the August 15, 2006 summary disposition order. Therein, the ICA affirmed the Family Court of the First Circuit's2 August 5, 2005 judgment, convicting Mother of and sentencing her for the offense of abuse of family or household members, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906 (Supp.2005).3
In her application, Mother argues that the ICA gravely erred in affirming her conviction inasmuch as: (1) insufficient evidence was adduced to rebut her parental justification defense under HRS § 703-309(1) (1993), quoted infra; and (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury to continue deliberations and directing the jury to a previously-promulgated instruction on how to go about in its deliberations, after the jury had indicated that it was deadlocked. Respondent/plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant State of Hawai`i (the prosecution) did not file a response to Mother's application.
For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the ICA's August 29, 2006 judgment and reverse the trial court's August 5, 2005 judgment of conviction and sentence.
A. The Trial
On April 25, 2005, Mother was charged by way of complaint with one count of abuse of family or household members, in violation of HRS § 709-906, for "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly [causing] physical[ ] abuse" to her fourteen-year-old daughter [hereinafter, Daughter]. A jury trial commenced on August 2, 2005 and lasted three days, until August 4, 2005. The following evidence was adduced at trial.
Daughter testified that, at the time of the incident on April 15, 2005, she was fourteen years old and living with Mother, her step-father, and five siblings. Daughter was attending Castle High School and was in the fourth and final quarter of her freshman year. In the first two quarters of Daughter's freshman year, she was receiving low grades, including two Fs. As a result, Daughter and Mother discussed what was causing the low grades and how Daughter was going to improve them, to which Daughter "suggested [that she] should go to tutoring," and Mother agreed. Daughter began attending the tutoring classes three times a week at the end of January. However, by February, Daughter was only attending the class once a week and started to "hang out" with her friends at the mall. By March, Daughter attended tutoring classes "[n]ot as much" and "only when [she] needed help with a specific item." Daughter was not keeping up with her homework and continued to "hang out" with her friends at the mall.
Nonetheless, Daughter led Mother to believe that she was attending tutoring classes through February and March. Specifically, Daughter testified that:
Q. [By Defense Counsel:] During this period of time when you stopped going to tutoring, [i.e., the month of February,] you told your mom that you were still going to tutoring?
A. [By Daughter:] Yes.
. . . . Q. Okay. . . . And during this time in March you were still telling your mom that you were going to tutoring?
A. Yes.
(Emphasis added.) The third quarter ended after spring break in March. At the beginning of April, Mother began to question Daughter as to when she would be getting her report card for the third quarter, to which Daughter responded that she was unsure as to the date. Mother testified that:
. . . I reminded her from Monday[, i.e., April 11, 2005,]
. . . .
I was looking forward because of her request to go to tutoring. As a mom, I want to see those grades [go] up for her[.]
On Friday, April 15, 2005 (the date of the incident), Daughter received her report card and found that she "didn't do too well." Daughter, thus, "purposely left [her report card] in school" even though she knew that Mother was waiting for her grades. That afternoon, Mother picked Daughter up from school, along with her brothers and sisters who were talking about their report cards, in the family van. Mother drove to Kaneohe Elementary School, where she and Daughter waited in the parking lot while the other children attended Kumon (i.e., tutoring) classes. Mother remained seated in the driver's seat, and Daughter sat diagonally behind her in the second row seat of the van. While waiting in the van, Mother asked to see Daughter's report card, and Daughter answered that she forgot it at school. Mother testified that, at that moment,
[i]n my mind[, I was thinking] how could you[, i.e., Daughter,] forget all along. I've asked [her], you know. I reminded [her] on Monday. I reminded her again on Wednesday, and Friday came.
. . . .
I'm sitting in the driver's seat. I'm thinking,
. . . .
So then I ask[ed] her again,
. . . .
[Daughter] didn't respond right away. I say, "So tell me where is your report card?" "At school." "Where at school?" "In my social studies textbook."
. . . .
[At] that moment[,] I tried to put two and two together. So I'm saying — so, I . . . asked her . . . "You purposely left it there?" And then she didn't say anything.
. . . .
So I told her,
Mother stated that Daughter eventually told her the truth, and, at Mother's request, Daughter wrote her grades down on a piece of paper, indicating that she received "four C's, one D and one I," i.e., an incomplete. Mother testified that she was "very worried" because she "didn't know if [Daughter] was going to pass [her classes] or not."
Mother began questioning Daughter as to why there had been no improvement of her low grades. Daughter refused to answer. Daughter's testimony reveals why she refused to answer Mother's questions:
Q. [By Defense Counsel:] Okay. And at first you don't answer her[,] right?
A. [By Daughter:] No.
Q. Okay. Um, mom is asking you for answers and you're not answering her?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Um, seems like mom's getting a little bit frustrated?
A. Um-hmm. Yes.
Q. Okay. Um, and is it disrespectful not to answer mom?
A. Yeah.
Q. So mom is asking you now, um, because you're stalling, "Are you lying to me?"
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And were you in fact lying to her?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So mom asks you, "What about the tutoring?" Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And — and you told her that you were still going to tutoring[,] right?
A. Yes.
Q. .... You weren't answering her immediately every time she asked you a question[,] right?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You were kind of stalling?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Um, stalling for a long period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Because you didn't want to answer her?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Um, and that's when mom disciplines you[,] right?
A. Yes.
According to Daughter, because Daughter was sitting diagonally behind Mother in the van, Mother could not reach Daughter easily and used a plastic backpack (belonging to Mother's younger daughter), which was about sixteen inches by twelve inches in size and contained a school folder and a jacket, to hit Daughter. Daughter, however, used her left arm to block the backpack. Mother testified that she was trying to hit Daughter's leg in order to get her attention: "
Mother continued to demand to know whether Daughter had been attending the tutoring classes, to which Daughter finally answered "no." Mother then demanded to know where Daughter had been going instead. Daughter refused to answer, and, thus, Mother tried to hit her with a plastic hanger, aiming at Daughter's thigh. Mother testified that she began hitting Daughter with the hanger because Daughter "wasn't responding" to her questions. Each time, Daughter blocked the hanger with her left arm. Daughter estimated that she was hit approximately five times on the left forearm and upper arm.
Daughter finally told Mother that she had been hanging out with her friends at the mall instead of going to the tutoring classes. At this point, Mother "got more frustrated," "thought that [Daughter] was dishonest," and "felt deceived." Mother picked up a "small car brush," which was about four or five inches long, and hit Daughter once on the top of her left hand with the flat side of the brush. Mother then hit Daughter once on the knuckles with "the plastic handle" of an unspecified tool. Mother indicated that she believed she had "to teach [her] daughter a lesson, to get back on the right track." Mother testified that:
I didn't know it was — it was wrong, but I did it for a purpose. I just wanted the best for my daughter. I felt that she was going off the wrong track. Um, I felt that she needed to get back on the right path. Um, I don't know her whereabouts to where she say, I don't know who she made contact with. I felt that she was taking the risk of, um, complacence.
. . . .
... I'm a 24/7 mom, I support — I support my kids a hundred percent. Um, I just wanted the best for [Daughter] and-because, um,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jess
... ... Act 1 speaks directly to extended term sentencing procedures. Accordingly, an assessment of whether Act 1 can be applied to Jess's resentencing does not constitute an advisory opinion on an abstract proposition that cannot affect the matter at issue in the present case. See State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai`i 149, 169 n. 15, 166 P.3d 322, 342 n. 14; State v. Cutsinger, No. 28203, ___ Hawai`i ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2008 WL 257175, at *6 (Haw.Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008) (holding that the ICA's decision to address whether Act 1 could be applied retroactively to the defendant was not an advisory ... ...
-
State v. Tetu
... ... B. Sufficiency of the Evidence This court will "not overturn a conviction by a jury if 'viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [prosecution], there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.' " State v. Matavale , 115 Hawai'i 149, 158, 166 P.3d 322, 331 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Moniz , 92 Hawai'i 472, 476, 992 P.2d 741, 744 (App. 1999) ). Substantial evidence is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable [a person] of reasonable caution to ... ...
-
Lily E. Hamilton On Behalf of Amber J. Lethem v. Lethem
... ... Father therefore has the burden of showing the alleged unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kam, 69 Haw. 483, 496, 748 P.2d 372, 380 (1988); accord State v. Adler, 108 Hawaii 169, 177, 118 P.3d 652, 660 (2005). 1. Substantive Due ... In re Doe, 99 Hawaii at 533, 57 P.3d at 458; Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawaii 323, 334, 172 P.3d 1067, 1078 (2007); State v. Matavale, 115 Hawaii 149, 158, 166 P.3d 322, 331 (2007). Foremost among them is the right to conceive and raise children, which the Supreme Court has ... ...
-
State ‘i v. Kikuta
... ... As acknowledged by the legislature, the line between physical abuse and appropriate parental discipline is a very subjective one. What one parent considers discipline may seem abusive to another. State v. Matavale, 115 Hawaii 149, 161, 166 P.3d 322, 334 (2007) (quoting Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2493, in 1992 Senate Journal, at 1121). However, because a defendant is entitled to have the trier of fact consider a defense having any support in the evidence no matter how weak, inconclusive, or unsatisfactory ... ...