 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Driessen8/9/2004
d they were both hitchhiking, but then admitted, "You know, I'm not sure exactly. I'm not sure, I'm sorry."
***3 The district court found Driessen guilty as charged:
Ms. Andrews was the operator of the other vehicle involved in the collision and she identified the defendant as the driver. Mr. Day came upon the scene almost immediately after the accident. He did not see any other person either within or without the van. The defendant's testimony regarding his relationship with Wendell is not convincing in light of the inconsistencies of his statement today and those given at the scene. So based upon that, I'll find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the [three charged offenses].
During allocution, Driessen continued to insist that he was not the driver. The district court responded:
We'll straighten it out today. So you can appeal. You can talk to your attorney about appealing. I can only rule on the evidence presented. I found the State's evidence convincing to me.
Your story is, to put it mildly, filled with holes. It's improbable. There's no evidence to support it other than your testimony. The other driver saw what happened. She identified you as the driver.
II. Discussion.
For his sole point of error on appeal, Driessen contends there was not substantial evidence adduced at trial that he was the driver. Driessen makes a number of arguments in this regard.
First, Driessen notes that Andrews was the only witness who could claim to have seen him driving the van. Driessen asserts that her testimony was suspect because she had closed her eyes in anticipation of impact. Driessen also questions how Andrews could make a reliable identification of the driver under the press of events in the split second she was attempting to avoid impact. As for Andrews' observation of him climbing out of the van, Driessen argues that, "Andrews was not observing the van to see whether someone else had climbed out of the van before Driessen as she was 'disoriented' and confused and several minutes passed before she composed herself and looked over at the van." Opening Brief at 8. Finally, Driessen notes, "Neither was there any objective physical evidence that Driessen had been operating the van, such as his fingerprints on the steering wheel, or circumstantial evidence such as proof that Driessen was the owner of the van or evidence that he had been previously seen driving the van at any time prior to the accident." Opening Brief at 11.
In other words, Driessen attacks the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial. Accordingly, we employ the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence;
namely, whether, upon the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and in full recognition of the province of the trier of fact, the evidence is sufficient to support a prima facie case so that a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case requires substantial evidence as to every material element of the offense charged. 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. Under such a review, we give full play to the right of the fact finder to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact.
***4 State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawai'i 409, 422, 23 P.3d 744, 757 (App.2001) (citation and internal block quote format omitted).
As quoted above, the district court found the State's witnesses credible and Driessen not credible. We will not second-guess its assessment in this respect. In re Doe, 95 Hawai'i 183, 197, 20 P.3d 616
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|