430 P.3d 893 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-17-0000397, State v. Brain
|Citation:||430 P.3d 893, 143 Hawaii 332|
|Party Name:||STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas David Allen BRAIN, Defendant-Appellant,|
|Attorney:||Leneigha S. Downs, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawaii, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jacqueline R. Maele, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Chan, JJ.|
|Case Date:||December 06, 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This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 THIRD CIRCUIT, NORTH AND SOUTH HILO DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DCW-16-0003004)
On the briefs:
Leneigha S. Downs, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawaii, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jacqueline R. Maele, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Chan, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Douglas David Allen Brain (Brain) appeals from the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed on April 12, 2017, in the District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Hilo Division (District Court).
Brain was convicted of Harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(b) (Supp. 2014).
On appeal, Brain claims (1) the District Court erred by sustaining relevance objections to his testimony describing the sequence of events, (2) the District Court erred by refusing to allow a defense rebuttal witness to testify, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to convict him.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Brains points of error as follows:
(1) On appeal, Brain contends the District Court erred by excluding his testimony regarding his arrest by the police because it was relevant to determine the sequence of events, his state of mind, and his intent to harass or cause bodily injury to the complaining witness. Brain contends the testimony was directly relevant to contradict the complaining witnesss testimony and to show it was unlikely he would intend to harass the complaining witness while handcuffed and surrounded by police officers.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP