430 P.3d 893 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000734, State v. Stoute
|Citation:||430 P.3d 893, 143 Hawaii 332|
|Party Name:||STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory B. STOUTE, Defendant-Appellant|
|Attorney:||Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Wailuku, for Defendant-Appellant. Richard K. Minatoya, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.|
|Case Date:||November 30, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, WAILUKU DIVISION (CASE NO. 2DCW-16-0000676).
On the briefs:
Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Wailuku, for Defendant-Appellant.
Richard K. Minatoya, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Appellant-Defendant Gregory B. Stoute (Stoute) appeals from the September 2, 2016 District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division (District Court)1 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (Judgment). After a bench trial, the District Court convicted Stoute of Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree (Promoting Drugs 3), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1249(1) (2014),2 and sentenced him to five days in jail.
On appeal, Stoute contends that the District Court did not obtain an on-the-record waiver of his constitutional right to counsel and did not obtain a valid waiver of Stoutes right to testify in his own defense at trial. In addition, he argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Upon review of the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, giving due consideration to the issues presented and the arguments raised by the parties, we resolve the issues presented as follows and reverse the District Courts Judgment.
Stoute argues that insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Promoting Drugs 3 was presented as the State failed to present evidence that he possessed "marijuana" as defined. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is well established; namely, whether, upon the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and in full recognition of the province of the trier of fact, the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP