 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yee11/16/2001
s able to provide direct evidence that Yee was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was driving.
However, in deciding whether to uphold the district court's decision, we must review the evidence adduced in the district court "in the strongest light for the prosecution" when evaluating the "legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction." State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 248, 831 P.2d 924, 931, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 834 P.2d 1315 (1992). "The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact." 73 Haw. at 248, 831 P.2d at 931. Furthermore, it is "for the trial judge as factfinder to assess credibility of witnesses, including defendants, and to resolve all questions of fact." Lono v. State, 63 Haw. 470, 473, 629 P.2d 630, 633 (1981).
There was substantial, credible evidence that Yee was the driver of the red Dodge Colt that was driven erratically from Kaaawa to Hauula, failed the FSTs administered by Officer Pizarro, "slightly failed" the one-legged stand test, and presented distinct nystagmus in both eyes following the HGN tests. There was evidence that when Yee came out of the house, Yee had red, bloodshot, watery eyes and a moderate odor of alcohol on his breath.
"The trier of fact may draw all reasonable and legitimate inferences and deductions from the evidence adduced from admitted or known facts, and findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous." Id. at 473-74, 629 P.2d at 633.
To support a conviction for violating HRS § 291-4, the State was required to prove that Yee operated or assumed actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There was substantial evidence that Yee was under the influence of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair his normal mental faculties or ability to care for himself and guard against casualty in violation of HRS § 291-4.
We conclude there was substantial evidence on the record for the district court to find that Yee violated HRS § 291-4(a)(1).
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court's April 7, 2000, Judgment in this case is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|