 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Arakawa9/19/2003
Arakawa's 1992 intoxication incident and related trespassing conviction because (a) Arakawa was charged with "recklessly" causing the death of another (HRS § 707-702(1)(a)), (b) his state of mind and knowledge of the effect alcohol consumption had upon his judgment was at issue, inasmuch as the prosecution had to prove that Arakawa consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct would cause the death of another, (c) the 1992 intoxication event and related trespassing conviction was relevant to prove that, when Arakawa decided to drive on October 7, 2000 after consuming eleven beers and one shot of hard liquor, he was aware that his judgment was seriously impaired when he was under the influence of alcohol, and (d) the court, after being briefed and holding a hearing on this specific evidentiary issue, balanced the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, concluded that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial, and gave cautionary instructions to the jury (both before and after the evidence was introduced) limiting use of the evidence for the sole purpose of deciding Arakawa's state of mind, see State v. Robinson, 79 Hawaii 468, 903 P.2d 1289 (1995); State v. St. Clair, 101 Hawaii 280, 287-89, 67 P.3d 779, 786-88 (2003); (6) the circuit court erred in admitting and failing to strike testimony (one question and answer) that attempted to improperly bolster the testimony of one of the prosecution's expert witnesses, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt considering the totality of the evidence concerning Arakawa's drinking of alcohol on the day and night in question; and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arakawa's mid-trial oral motion to allow one of his expert witnesses to do special testing on the vehicles involved in the collision on the day prior to her testifying in trial because the testing could have been done prior to trial, see State v. Arakawa, 101 Hawaii 26, 61 P.3d 537 (App. 2002); State v. Furutani, 76 Hawaii 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
|