State v. Park
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. CAAP-20-0000552,CAAP-20-0000552 |
| Citation | 149 Hawai‘i 542,495 P.3d 392 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Yoonjung PARK, aka Suji, Defendant-Appellee, and Mei Ying Zhang, aka Lulu, and Tok Sim Kwon, aka Mama Tina, Defendants |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i.
William A. Harrison, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellee Yoonjung Park.
Defendant-Appellee Yoonjung Park was indicted by a grand jury for violation of the Organized Crime law, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) Chapter 842.1 Park moved to dismiss the indictment. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit2 granted Park's motion. The circuit court concluded that Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i "failed to produce evidence of an enterprise[,]" citing State v. Ontai, 84 Hawai‘i 56, 929 P.2d 69 (1996). The State appealed. We distinguish Ontai, which involved an alleged associated-in-fact enterprise; we hold that a limited liability company qualifies as a legal-entity "enterprise" as defined by HRS § 842-1. We also hold, however, that the State failed to present evidence that Park "conduct[ed] or participate[d] in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise" within the meaning of HRS § 842-2. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the indictment as to Park, but for a different reason than that given by the circuit court.
On October 30, 2018, the O‘ahu grand jury heard testimony from three witnesses. The first witness (Jason ) testified pursuant to a plea agreement. He described going to a place called "Roses " — located in a building on Young Street — three times in 2018. His first time was in February. He was taken to a room by a woman called a "mama-san." He paid the mama-san a $50 house fee. The mama-san brought a woman to the room. The woman showered with Jason. Jason paid the woman $150. Jason and the woman then had sexual intercourse.
Jason went back to Roses in March. He paid the mama-san the $50 house fee and was taken to a room. The mama-san brought a woman to the room. The mama-san said the woman's name was "Suji." Jason and Suji showered. Jason paid Suji $150. They then had sexual intercourse.
Jason next went to Roses in June. He called Roses and made an appointment to see Suji. He drove to Roses. He paid the mama-san the $50 house fee. He was taken to a room. Suji came to the room. They had sexual intercourse. Jason then paid Suji $150. Jason was later shown a photographic lineup and identified Park as the woman he knew as Suji.
The next witness was a woman named Okku , who also testified pursuant to a plea agreement. Okku started working at Roses in January 2018. Roses was owned by Mama Sami. There was also a Mama Tina, who worked at night. The mama-sans did the cleaning and cooking, answered the phones, collected the house fees, and sent customers to the women's rooms. Okku worked at Roses with three other women, one of whom was known as Suji. They all engaged in sex for money. Suji lived at Roses, worked 7 days a week, and had regular customers. Another woman was called "Lulu." Lulu worked at Roses every day and had five customers per day.
The third witness was an investigator from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. The investigator testified that Roses' legal name was "Belabration and Roses Spa LLC." It was a Hawai‘i limited liability company in 2017 and 2018. The investigator participated in executing a search warrant at Roses. He found Park there. In Park's room he "found condoms, U.S. currency, three cell phones, and vaginal insert lubes." The investigator showed a photographic lineup to Jason, who identified Park as the person he knew as Suji. The investigator showed a photographic lineup to Okku, who identified Park as the person she knew as Suji. The investigator also testified about a website that advertised prostitution. Roses had several ads on this website featuring Suji/Park.
The grand jury indicted Park and two others for Unlawful Ownership or Operation of Business in violation of HRS § 842-2(3) (Count 1 ).3 Park was charged with conducting or participating in conducting the affairs of Belabration and Roses Spa LLC through Prostitution in violation of HRS § 712-12004 and/or Promoting Prostitution in violation of HRS § 712-1203.5 On January 22, 2019, Park moved to dismiss Count 1 of the indictment. The motion was heard on June 8, 2020. The circuit court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of the Indictment" was entered on August 10, 2020. This appeal followed.
The State challenges finding of fact no. 9, which is actually a mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law. It states:
9. In short, the evidence against Yoonjung Park amounted to three acts of prostitution with [Jason]. There was absolutely no evidence presented that Yoonjung Park "conduct[ed] or participate[d] in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity." Yoonjung Park was not the owner of Roses. She did not clean Roses or cook for the employees of Roses. She did not answer the telephone for Roses. Nor did she collect the "house fees" or bring customers to the "girl's" room [sic].
(Citations to grand jury transcript omitted.)
The State also challenges conclusions of law nos. 16 and 17 and the circuit court's order. They state:
(Emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
We review the circuit court's determination of sufficiency of the evidence to support an indictment de novo using the right/wrong standard. State v. Taylor, 126 Hawai‘i 205, 215, 269 P.3d 740, 750 (2011) (citing Ontai, 84 Hawai‘i at 64, 929 P.2d at 77 ).
A grand jury indictment:
must be based on probable cause. Probable cause is established by a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. The evidence to support an indictment need not be sufficient to support a conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to establish probable cause before the grand jury, every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the indictment and neither the trial court nor the appellate court on review may substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the Grand Jury.
Ontai, 84 Hawai‘i at 63, 929 P.2d at 76 (cleaned up).
Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Estate of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai‘i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) (citing cases). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding or, despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, we are nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Substantial evidence is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Id.
A conclusion of law is reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard. Klink, 113 Hawai‘i at 351, 152 P.3d at 523. A conclusion of law that is supported by the trial court's findings of fact and that reflects an application of the correct rule of law will not be overturned. Id. However, a conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Id.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewable de novo. Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro, 149 Hawai‘i 21, 33, 481 P.3d 28, 40 (2021).
HRS § 842-2 (2014) provides, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial