State v. Yi1/20/2004
sentencing program.
2.
Yi contends that the family court improperly punished him for: (1) exercising his right to a jury trial; and (2) the uncharged crime of perjury. In making this argument, Yi relies primarily on the emphasized language in the quotation below (taken from transcripts of the sentencing hearing):
THE COURT: Okay. Your client wanted to address the [c]ourt?
INTERPRETER [FOR YI]: Yeah. I like to say, I admit my fault. That's all I like to say.
I--I fear. I'm sorry that, you know, I had to go through jury trial that taking the [c]ourt's time, so I apologize for that. I like to ask a favor, you know. Hopefully give me a chance so I can support my family so as little [sic] possible, I would like to request.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that it?
INTERPRETER [FOR YI]: I--I admit my fault. I understood principles, but--
THE COURT: Go ahead.
INTERPRETER [FOR YI]: I did not, frankly, I did not understand all the details, everything that entails. I made a mistake.
THE COURT: Okay. So a statement that he knew he did something wrong, or he didn't know and he made a mistake? I'm a little confused.
INTERPRETER [FOR YI]: At this time, I will take full responsibility.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay, Mr. Yi, if you would [sic] 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.
***11 You also have been convicted of assaulting [Pom] 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.
(Emphases added.)
Yi's claim that the family court punished him for exercising his right to a jury trial appears to take the family court's comments out of context. The family court was merely telling Yi that if Yi had come forward and taken responsibility for his actions before trial and before lying under oath, [FN9] his plea for mercy would have received a much more receptive audience. Judges are understandably less impressed by defendants who own up to their actions only after being convicted. The record contains no hint that the family court actually intended to punish Yi for taking his case to trial. [FN10]
FN9. The judge clearly felt that Yi had just admitted that Yi really had understood that the TRO was a court order forbidding him to go back to the apartment.
FN10. In State v. Mata, 71 Haw. 319, 326, 789 P.2d 1122, 1126 (1990), the Hawai'i Supreme Court observed that, while a judge may not threaten a defendant with more severe punishment to encourage the defendant to plead guilty, courts can take into account a defendant's admission of guilt at the time of sentencing:
Very obviously the threat, express or implied, of more severe sentencing, in the event of a guilty verdict, if a jury trial is demanded, would be coercive, and would violate a defendant's constitut
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|