State v. Tagaolo
Decision Date | 04 May 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 22541.,22541. |
Citation | 2 P.3d 718,93 Haw. 314 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuelu TAGAOLO, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Michael G.M. Ostendorp and Shawn A. Luiz, on the briefs for Defendant-Appellant.
Alexa D.M. Fujise, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Samuelu Tagaolo (Tagaolo) appeals the circuit court's April 30, 1999 Judgment, upon a jury's verdict, convicting him of Possession of Firearm by a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 134-7(b) and (h) (Supp.1999); Possession of Ammunition by a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes, HRS §§ 134-7(b) and (h) (Supp.1999); and Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver, HRS §§ 134-6(c) and (e) (Supp.1999). Specifically, he challenges some of the February 23, 1999 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Items (FsOF, CsOL, and Order). We conclude that Tagaolo's appeal has merit. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
On February 2, 1999, Tagaolo filed his Motion to Suppress Items (M/S) seeking to suppress evidence of a semi-automatic handgun and an ammunition magazine containing two rounds. He argues that these items were seized from his fanny pack (also referred to herein as a "fanny bag") following an illegal search. The M/S was heard on February 16, 1999. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court stated that
The February 23, 1999 FsOF, CsOL, and Order state in pertinent part:
. In addition, the facts, taken together with all reasonable inferences from those facts, clearly support a finding of probable cause. State v. Decano, supra.
(Footnotes added.)
A trial commenced on March 2, 1999, and, on March 3, 1999, a jury found Tagaolo guilty of Count I, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes; Count II, Possession of Ammunition by a Person Convicted of Certain Crimes; and Count III, Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver. The April 30, 1999 Judgment sentenced Tagaolo to five years' imprisonment for each of Counts I and II and ten years' imprisonment for Count III, with all terms running concurrently.
The standard for appellate review of a circuit court's findings of fact and conclusion of law is as follows:
Appellate review of factual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case is governed by the clearly erroneous standard. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The circuit court's conclusions of law are reviewed under the right/wrong standard. Furthermore, in a case such as the one at bar, the proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing not only that the evidence sought to be excluded was unlawfully secured, but also, that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search and seizure sought to be challenged. The proponent of the motion to suppress must satisfy this burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Balberdi, 90 Hawai`i 16, 20-21, 975 P.2d 773, 777-78 (1999) (citing State v. Anderson, 84 Hawai`i 462, 466-67, 935 P.2d 1007, 1011-12 (1997)).
"The circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo to determine whether, as a matter of law, the ruling was `right' or `wrong'." State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997).
"The determination of whether a search was lawfully conducted is entirely a question of law, which this court reviews de novo under the right/wrong standard." State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai`i 382, 391, 910 P.2d 695, 704 (1996).
Tagaolo contends that the circuit court reversibly erred when it denied his M/S. We agree. Specifically, Tagaolo challenges FsOF Nos. 11 and 16 and CsOL 1 through 3.
Tagaolo challenges that part of FOF No. 11 that states, Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence supporting FOF No. 11. Officer Oliveros testified on direct or cross-examination that, during the chase, Tagaolo "was fumbling around with" the bag, "stopped and fumbled around with the bag," "[l]ooked like he was fumbling around with the zipper," and "through the whole run [Tagaolo] was fumbling...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pila‘a 400, LLC v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res.
...on January 23, 2001, by James H. Pflueger.2 "Makai" means "toward the sea, in the direction of the sea." State v. Tagaolo, 93 Hawai‘i 314, 318 n. 6, 2 P.3d 718, 722 n. 6 (App.2000) (citing M. Pukui and S. Ebert, Hawaiian Dictionary 225 (1979)).3 A "kuleana" is "a small area of land such as ......
-
State v. Ikimaka
...amended memorandum opinion filed on December 18, 2019.11 The improper dog sniff invalidated the search warrant. See State v. Tagaolo, 93 Hawai‘i 314, 2 P.3d 718 (App. 2000) (holding officer's suspicion that firearm and ammunition were in fanny bag was fruit of poisonous tree of his improper......
-
State v. Barrickman
...initial burden of establishing that the search was illegal. 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 675 (1982); State v. Tagaolo, 93 Hawaii 314, 2 P.3d 718 (App.2000). In these situations, the proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing not only that the evidence ......