 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Yi1/20/2004
e made a mistake? I'm a little confused.
INTERPRETER [FOR YI]: At this time, I will take full my responsibility.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay, Mr. Yi, if you would come here before the trial and had said all this, I certainly would have listened to all of it. You would have been given another chance. You didn't, presumably, you weren't on probation any more, so I would imagine that this would have been a minimal amount of jail.
As the prosecutor points out, though, you came into court; you took an oath to tell the truth, and you lied under oath. I'm not going to say that's based on your language 'cause the State could make what they wanted out of that, but I am convinced that you knew you weren't supposed to be in the apartment, that you knew that that's what the order was, that the officer explained that, that you understood him to say that, and you testified under oath that you didn't understand that, and that you went back.
You also have been convicted of assaulting in the past. The fact that she's still with you, I think you're an extremely lucky guy, so I don't want to, you know, I'm certainly not going to give you the maximum, because I don't think that's appropriate.
On the other hand, you do not have the right to come into court and lie to me, to the jurors, to everyone else, so I'm going to sentence you to two years of probation, four months in jail. You are ordered to pay the cost of your own probation, which is $75 a year for two years, plus $50 CICC victim's fund fee, that's $200. You have 30 days to pay that.
The -- I will stay the imposition of this for 30 days. Regarding the jail term, if you're -- if you folks are going to file an appeal, that can be done, that will stay the jail time alone, all the rest of the conditions will go forward.
I'm trying to take into account here, Mr. Yi, the fact that you do have another family to support. You have another business. At the same time, you've been convicted of a crime of a domestic crime of violence in the past, and you committed another one here, and then came into court to lie about it, so I'm trying to balance that, and I think four months is, you know, a very fair sentence for that.
DISCUSSION
A. The Sufficiency of the Evidence to Convict Yi for Violation of a TRO
Yi contends that the State failed to adduce evidence of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to conclude that he intentionally or knowingly engaged in conduct which he knew was prohibited by order of a court. Specifically, Yi argues that there was no direct evidence that he understood the TRO and that it had been issued by a judge of the family court. Therefore, he could not have acted intentionally or knowingly to disobey the order when he went back to Pom's apartment after being escorted away by Officer Lu.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, this court must consider the evidence "in the strongest light for the prosecution[.]" State v. Richie, 88 Hawaii 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998).
The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.
'Substantial evidence' as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.
Id. at 33 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The evidence in the record reveals that Yi had arrived in Hawaii when he was a teen
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.
|
|