 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yi1/20/2004
garding the offense of Violation of a TRO:
A person commits the offense of Violation of [TRO] if he [or she] intentionally or knowingly engages in conduct which he [or she] knows is prohibited by a[TRO] issued by a Judge of the Family Court, and the [TRO] was personally served on the Defendant and in effect at the time of the prohibited conduct.
There are four material elements of the offense of Violation of [TRO], each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
These four elements are:
1. That on or about June 14, 2001, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, a[TRO] issued by a Judge of the Family Court prohibiting [Yi] from engaging in certain conduct was in effect; and
***4 2. That [Yi] had been personally served with a copy of the [TRO] on June 14, 2001; and
3. That [Yi] engaged in conduct which he knew was prohibited by the [TRO]; and
4. That [Yi] engaged in said conduct intentionally or knowingly.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on October 25, 2001.
At the sentencing hearing on December 3, 2001, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (the State) noted that Yi had a prior conviction of Assault in the Third Degree involving Pom, "a DUI discharge in '94, [and] abuse dismissed in 1990[.]" The State asked that Yi be sentenced to two years' probation and three months in jail due to Yi's past history of abuse and his dishonesty to the court regarding his ability to understand English. Defense counsel and Yi both asked the family court for leniency with regard to a jail term because of Yi's family and work obligations.
The following colloquy occurred between defense counsel, Yi, and the family court with respect to Yi's sentence:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Yi has now been convicted of this offense by a jury of his peers. He respects the verdict that the jury gave in this case.
I also, and this is through my discussions with him, he can also make his own statement. He is taking responsibility--well, he's convicted, of course, but he is also coming forward to the [c]ourt now to say that he did understand enough of what the officer had conveyed to him, that he should not have gone back to that apartment, and he did have a court order in his hand.
So, although he did--did not understand, didn't have the capability to understand every word or every provision in that order, he violated that order.
....
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Also, Your Honor, at this time I'd like to go into some background about my client's current situation. This doesn't necessarily-- this doesn't go to--it goes to what--what's going on in his life, and that may also--that may be related to what the appropriate sentence would be.
THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Yi is in the household right now with [Pom]. They are together, I think that was apparent at the trial, or at least the [c]ourt was aware of it.
Mr. Yi has three children from a--from a marriage where he separated from his wife. He is with [Pom]. The children are 17, 13 and 8 years old.
THE COURT: These are from a marriage not involving [Pom], you're saying?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Yi does support or help support these children. He does own a business. It's a business where he takes cars that are, I think, in--need to be salvaged, or somebody supplies him these cars. He repairs them, and then that person, I guess, takes them back and markets them, so he does have a--a business that's his own business.
And if he's given a substantial period of jail, he's likely to have to close that business. He has--his sister, who's present in the court, had posted bail in the amount of $1,000 in this case.
***5 The [c]ourt's aware that, I believe the maximum fine in this cas
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.
|
|