State v. Naki, 083117 HIICA, CAAP-16-0000614

Docket Nº:CAAP-16-0000614
Party Name:STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMBER NAKI, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:Diamond U. Grace, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Leonard, Presiding Judge, Ginoza and Chan, JJ.
Case Date:August 31, 2017
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

AMBER NAKI, Defendant-Appellant

No. CAAP-16-0000614

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

August 31, 2017

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT KANE'OHE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DCW-15-0005548)

Diamond U. Grace, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leonard, Presiding Judge, Ginoza and Chan, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Amber Naki, aka Amber Jardine, (Naki) appeals from the Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed on August 11, 2016 in the District Court of the First Circuit, Kane'ohe Division (District Court).[1]

After a bench trial, Naki was convicted of Harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(b) (Supp. 2014).2

On appeal, Naki contends there was insufficient evidence to convict her, specifically, that there was insufficient evidence showing that Naki intended to harass, annoy, or alarm the complaining witness (CW), and that Naki did in fact insult, taunt, or challenge CW in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response or cause CW to reasonably believe that Naki intended to cause bodily injury to CW or damage to the property of CW.

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 Naki's point of error as follows, and affirm.

In considering the evidence adduced at trial in the strongest light for the prosecution, State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai'i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Naki's conviction for Harassment under HRS § 711-1106(1)(b).

First, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence showing that Naki had the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm CW. 11 [T] he mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State v. Stocker, 90...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP