 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kekahuna6/25/2001
of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for oneself and guard against casualty[.]" HRS § 291-4(a)(1). However, the record does not support an argument that the court accorded too much weight to the pass/fail results of the FSTs. The only relevant statement made by the court on the subject of what evidence it relied on was that " ith respect to the driving under the influence matter, however, I do find the officer's testimo y to be far more credible than Mr. Kekahuna's and I do find Mr. Kekahuna guilty of the violation."
In Kekahuna's case, there is evidence of (a) his manner of performance of the FST procedures and his physical actions and inactions while taking the FSTs, (b) the pass/fail results of the FSTs, and (c) his driving performance. Although "(b)" is not by itself substantial evidence that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Kekahuna was "under the influence of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for oneself and guard against casualty[,]" HRS § 291-4(a)(1), the combination of all three of these items of evidence constitutes such substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's April 7, 2000 judgment convicting Kekahuna of (A), Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, HRS § 291-4(a)(1).
We vacate the district court's April 7, 2000 judgment finding Kekahuna guilty of (B), Unsafe Changing of Lanes, HRS § 291C-49, and finding Kekahuna not guilty of (C), Defective Tail Light, HRS § 291-31. We remand (B) and (C) for an amendment of the judgment to show an acquittal of (B) and a conviction of (C) rather than the opposite.
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|