 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lioen11/24/2004
d truck and start to push it. When Officer Taguma went over to lend assistance, Lioen told Officer Taguma that the truck had "just stalled out." Officer Taguma did not see anyone else around the truck. Lioen was evasive when Officer Taguma asked Lioen for information. At no time did Lioen ever mention or claim that someone else had driven the truck. Officer Taguma remained on patrol for another hour after he cited Lioen and did not see anyone else come near the truck. In addition, motor vehicle records established that Lioen was the owner of the truck, having just purchased it on September 15, 2001. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Lioen had been driving his truck.
This court has held that sufficient evidence of the defendant's role as the driver can be established through inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. State v. Brown, 97 Hawai'i 323, 333, 37 P.3d 572, 582 (App.2001); State v. Chow, 77 Hawai'i 241, 244-46, 883 P.2d 663, 666-68 (App.1994). Eyewitness testimony that the defendant was driving is not required. Id. Under facts very similar to Lioen's case, courts in other states have held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant had been operating a motor vehicle. E.g., State v. Miller, 412 N.W.2d 849, 850-51 (Neb.1987) (holding that the evidence was sufficient where the defendant's truck was stopped sideways in the road and defendant was the sole occupant of the truck); State v. Teti, 716 A.2d 931, 935 (Conn.App.Ct.1998) (holding that the evidence was sufficient where the defendant was observed next to a vehicle stuck in a snowbank, and footprints coming from the vehicle matched that of the defendant); State v. Sims, 426 So.2d 148, 151, 155 (La.1983) (holding that the evidence was sufficient where the defendant was seen in the driver's seat of a parked car with the motor running); Johnson v. State, 391 S.E.2d 132, 134 (Ga.App.1990) (same).
The thrust of Lioen's insufficiency argument is that the trial judge should have believed Bruneke's testimony that Bruneke, and not Lioen, had been driving Lioen's truck before it stalled. But credibility determinations are the province of the trier of fact. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 180, 873 P.2d 51, 59 (1994). The trial judge clearly rejected Bruneke's testimony as not credible, a determination we must respect on appeal.
CONCLUSION
*11 We affirm the April 17, 2002, Judgment of the District Court of the Second Circuit.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|