 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yi1/20/2004
after initially leaving with Officer Lu, Yi got some work clothes and left the apartment before Pom returned.
3.
Officer Lu testified that he served Yi with the TRO on June 14, 2001 and then explained to Yi, in English, "why the [TRO] was issued, and the--the orders or the instructions from the Judge as what [Yi] was allowed and not allowed to do." Officer Lu gave the explanation by reading to Yi "verbatim" the prohibitions listed in the TRO against Yi. Officer Lu recognized that Yi spoke in broken English and had a foreign accent. However, no request was made for the presence of an interpreter to communicate with Yi because Yi never asked for an interpreter nor indicated that he did not understand what Officer Lu was telling him. It also appeared that Yi understood what Officer Lu was saying.
Officer Lu also testified that Yi signed a proof of service document, acknowledging that he had been served personally with the TRO. Thereafter, Officer Lu asked Yi if he needed "to take any personal belongings with him 'cause he's not authorized to come back[.]" Yi then went to the bedroom, got dressed, "took his personal items, wallet, keys, that kind of thing," and then left the apartment with Officer Lu.
***3 According to Officer Lu, at about 11:05 or 11:10 the same morning, he received a call from the Honolulu Police Department dispatcher that Yi was back at Pom's apartment. Officer Lu returned to the apartment, could not find Yi, and learned from witnesses who were in the area that Yi sometimes drove Pom's vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Officer Lu saw a vehicle matching the description of Pom's vehicle, radioed another officer to stop the vehicle, and placed Yi under arrest for Violation of a TRO. During the arrest process, Officer Lu asked Yi numerous questions and gave Yi numerous directions in English. Yi answered the questions and complied with the directions and did not appear to lack understanding of what was being communicated to him.
4.
Yi testified through an interpreter [FN5] that he did not understand the TRO papers served on him and signed the papers only because he thought he was going to be arrested if he did not do so. Yi also could not recall ever being told by Officer Lu to gather his personal belongings before leaving the apartment. According to Yi, after he had been served with the TRO, he and Officer Lu took the elevator together and Yi got off on the lobby level and Officer Lu got off on the lower (parking lot) level. Yi sat for a few minutes, thinking about what had happened. He then decided to go back upstairs to Pom's apartment because he gave all the money he made to Pom and had no money.
FN5. At trial, Yi had access to an interpreter. It appears from the transcript that he answered some questions himself and some through the interpreter.
Yi stayed in Pom's apartment for "30 to 40 minutes," grabbing some "work clothes" and drinking one beer. He then went back downstairs, got into the car that he owned but which was registered under Pom's name for "[i]nsurance purpose[s]," decided to go to work, and was arrested.
Yi did not dispute that he received the TRO but nevertheless had gone back to the apartment. However, he testified that when he was arrested, he did not understand what was going on and only began to realize what had occurred when he saw Pom standing nearby talking to the police. On cross-examination, Yi admitted that following his arrest, he answered in English all the questions posed to him by Officer Lu. Yi also acknowledged that he had been living in Hawai'i for twenty years and had not asked Officer Lu for an interpreter.
C. The Jury Instructions, Verdict, and Sentence
After the close of evidence, the family court, without objection, gave the jury the following instructions re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|