 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ka'apuni3/31/2005
ict court could fairly conclude that Kaapuni possessed the requisite state of mind at the time that he drove his car off the road and into the brush area. See State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934 (1992) ("Given the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, e have consistently held that . . . proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the [defendant's conduct] is sufficient." (Internal quotation signals and citations omitted.)).
Thus, because the evidence, "considered in the strongest light for the prosecution," is "legal sufficien . . . to support [Kaapuni's] conviction," State v. Viglielmo, 105 Hawaii 197, 202-03, 95 P.3d 952, 957-58 (2004) (internal quotation signals and citations omitted), we hold that district court did not err in convicting Kaapuni of ITD. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the ICA's Opinion is affirmed with regard to its affirmance of Kaapuni's conviction of DUI, (2) the ICA's Opinion is reversed as to its reversal of Kaapuni's conviction of ITD, and (3) the district court's conviction of Kaapuni of the offense of ITD is affirmed.
|