 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Yi1/20/2004
on him and signed the papers only because he thought he was going to be arrested if he did not do so. Yi also could not recall ever being told by Officer Lu to gather his personal belongings before leaving the apartment. According to Yi, after he had been served with the TRO, he and Officer Lu took the elevator together and Yi got off on the lobby level and Officer Lu got off on the lower (parking lot) level. Yi sat for a few minutes, thinking about what had happened. He then decided to go back upstairs to Pom's apartment because he gave all the money he made to Pom and had no money.
Yi stayed in Pom's apartment for "30 to 40 minutes," grabbing some "work clothes" and drinking one beer. He then went back downstairs, got into the car that he owned but which was registered under Pom's name for " nsurance purpose ," decided to go to work, and was arrested.
Yi did not dispute that he received the TRO but nevertheless had gone back to the apartment. However, he testified that when he was arrested, he did not understand what was going on and only began to realize what had occurred when he saw Pom standing nearby talking to the police. On cross-examination, Yi admitted that following his arrest, he answered in English all the questions posed to him by Officer Lu. Yi also acknowledged that he had been living in Hawaii for twenty years and had not asked Officer Lu for an interpreter.
C. The Jury Instructions, Verdict, and Sentence
After the close of evidence, the family court, without objection, gave the jury the following instructions regarding the offense of Violation of a TRO:
A person commits the offense of Violation of if he [or she] intentionally or knowingly engages in conduct which he [or she] knows is prohibited by a issued by a Judge of the Family Court, and the was personally served on the Defendant and in effect at the time of the prohibited conduct.
There are four material elements of the offense of Violation of , each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
These four elements are:
1. That on or about June 14, 2001, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, a issued by a Judge of the Family Court prohibiting from engaging in certain conduct was in effect; and
2. That had been personally served with a copy of the on June 14, 2001; and
3. That engaged in conduct which he knew was prohibited by the ; and
4. That engaged in said conduct intentionally or knowingly.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on October 25, 2001.
At the sentencing hearing on December 3, 2001, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (the State) noted that Yi had a prior conviction of Assault in the Third Degree involving Pom, "a DUI discharge in '94, abuse dismissed in 1990[.]" The State asked that Yi be sentenced to two years' probation and three months in jail due to Yi's past history of abuse and his dishonesty to the court regarding his ability to understand English. Defense counsel and Yi both asked the family court for leniency with regard to a jail term because of Yi's family and work obligations.
The following colloquy occurred between defense counsel, Yi, and the family court with respect to Yi's sentence:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Yi has now been convicted of this offense by a jury of his peers. He respects the verdict that the jury gave in this case.
I also, and this is through my discussions with him, he can also make his own statement. He is taking responsibility -- well, he's convicted, of course, but he is also coming forward to the court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|