 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Hayashi4/29/2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-appellant Cameron Richard Hayashi (Hayashi) appeals from the October 9, 2003 judgment of the district court of the first circuit, the Honorable George Y. Kimura presiding, convicting him of and sentencing him for driving under the influence (DUI) of drugs [hereinafter, "DUI-drugs"], in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-7 (repealed 2000). On appeal, Hayashi argues that: (1) the district court erred in denying his demand for a jury trial, inasmuch as DUI-drugs is a constitutionally serious offense; (2) the district court erred in holding that the admissibility of the drug recognition expert's (DRE) testimony required the court to accept the DRE's opinion as true; (3) the district court erred in holding that the State of Hawaii [hereinafter, "the prosecution"] was not required to prove impairment; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced, we hold that, in light of this court's holding in State v. Sullivan, 97 Hawaii 259, 36 P.3d 803 (2001), a first offense DUI-drugs is a petty misdemeanor, and, therefore, the right to jury trial does not attach. Inasmuch as Hayashi was charged with a first-offense DUI-drugs, the district court did not err in denying Hayashi's demand for a jury trial. We further hold that: (1) the district court's inartful statement that, "if [Officer Kobayashi's] testimony is accepted, then his opinion [regarding impairment] must be accepted" did not amount to an abdication of the district court's role as the trier of fact, inasmuch as (a) it was the prerogative of the district court to believe Officer Kobayashi's testimony and draw reasonable and legitimate inferences from it, and (b) the district court made clear that it considered the totality of the evidence to find Hayashi guilty of DUI-drugs, see State v. Eastman, 81 Hawaii 131, 913 P.2d 57 (1996); (2) the district court's failure to precisely articulate that impairment was a material element of the offense of DUI-drugs was harmless, inasmuch as (a) it did not render Hayashi's trial fundamentally unfair, (b) substantial evidence supported Officer Kobayashi's conclusion that Hayashi was impaired by drugs, and (c) it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt, that the district court would have found Hayashi guilty absent such omission, see State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawaii 312, 55 P.3d 276 (2002); and (3) the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to support Hayashi's conviction of the offense of DUI-drugs, inasmuch as substantial testimony was adduced to support a finding that Hayashi's ability to operate his car in a careful and prudent manner was impaired, see State v. Duncan, 101 Hawaii 269, 67 P.3d 768 (2003); State v. Valdivia, 95 Hawaii 465, 24 P.3d 661 (2001). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's October 9, 2003 judgment of guilty conviction and sentence, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.
Page 1 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|