State v. Brain

Decision Date06 December 2018
Docket NumberNO. CAAP-17-0000397,CAAP-17-0000397
Parties STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas David Allen BRAIN, Defendant-Appellant
CourtHawaii Court of Appeals

430 P.3d 893 (Table)

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Douglas David Allen BRAIN, Defendant-Appellant,

NO. CAAP-17-0000397

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

December 6, 2018


On the briefs:

Leneigha S. Downs, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jacqueline R. Ma‘ele, 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).1

Brain was convicted of Harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(b) (Supp. 2014).2

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 Brain's 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 witness's testimony and to show it was unlikely he would intend to harass the complaining witness while handcuffed and surrounded by police officers.

The complaining witness testified that after he confronted Brain about a noise disturbance, Brain made a hand gesture imitating a gun and said "if I had a gun right now, I would shoot you," prior to the police being called. The District Court excluded Brain's testimony regarding his arrest because "everything that occurred with the police [was] irrelevant." " ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Rule 401 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE). Brain admitted making the statement to the complaining witness. However, Brain also testified that the complaining witness "was around the corner and I turned my head and saw him, and I realized that this was all set up by him, and I'm in handcuffs. I pointed a couple of fingers at him and said if I had a gun, I’d shoot you."...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT