 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yee11/16/2001
r, Officer Pizarro arrested him for DUI.
Following the State's case, Yee moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. Yee renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, and the motion was again denied.
The district court did not find credible Yee's testimony that his eyes were red and watery because he was an organic farmer and the fertilizer he used caused an allergic reaction. Nor did the district court find credible Yee's testimony that he did not have anything to drink that evening prior to arriving at the beach house in Hauula, but he did consume vodka upon arrival to calm himself down because he was being tailgated by a truck.
The Court stated its findings as follows:
Alright, the Court's ready to rule. And just briefly we didn't really have a stop in this case. We have the officers arriving after they've been a stop and there's no question in the Court's mind that from the testimony that the Court's heard, that there was evidence shown that the defendant was drinking and that he was border line on some of the field test and flunked some of them. I think that's pretty established. The real underlying question to resolve from the credibility of the witnesses and all of the testimony, is whether he had been drinking and whether it impaired his driving to the extent that he was incapacitated.
The testimony on the driving is overwhelming and the question then as to whether you know [it's] credible testimony or not is something that the Court has to look into carefully. The lay witness certainly didn't have any background or reason to be untruthful. Mr. Raiola really is in the capacity of almost a commercial driver. He's out there on the road to maintain his livelihood and the evidence the Court feels is convincing in this respect is the 10 miles or more of erratic driving down this long stretch from Kaaawa all the way to Hauula. And that coupled with the field sobriety test and the observations, leads the Court to conclude that the Prosecution's met its burden and that the defendant is guilty as charged. And I'm going to find that.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
When reviewing a . . . motion for judgment of acquittal,
we employ the same standard that a trial court applies to such a motion, 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. State v. Jhun, 83 Hawaii 472, 481, 927 P.2d 1355, 1364 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawaii 87, 99, 997 P.2d 13, 25 (2000) (quoting State v. Timoteo, 87 Hawaii 108, 112-13, 952 P.2d 865, 869-70 (1997)).
III. DISCUSSION
Yee contends the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in the absence of substantial evidence that Yee was under the influence of alcohol at the time he operated his vehicle. Specifically, Yee argues that neither of the State's witnesses wa
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|