State v. Yake ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-MAY-2022
08:33 AM
Dkt. 54 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ADRIANNA DAWN YAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
SOUTH KOHALA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DTC-20-072552)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Adrianna Dawn Yake appeals from the
District Court of the Third Circuit's May 11, 2021 "Judgment and
Notice of Entry of Judgment"1 convicting Yake of Excessive
Speeding, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-
105(a)(2) (2020).2 On appeal, Yake challenges the admission of
Hawai#i County Police Department Officer Kimo Keli#ipa#akaua's
(Officer Keli#ipa#akaua) speed-reading testimony for lack of
foundation. Specifically, Yake contends that "[t]here is nothing
in the record to suggest that his training was in accordance with
[the manufacturer's] requirements."
1
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk presiding.
2
HRS § 291C-105(a)(2) provides that "[n]o person shall drive a motor
vehicle at a speed exceeding . . . [e]ighty miles per hour or more
irrespective of the applicable state or county speed limit."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Yake's
appeal as follows, and affirm.
As an initial matter, however, Yake fails to cite in
her point of error where in the record a specific objection to
the speed-reading testimony was made. Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring that each point shall state
"where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the
manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention of
the court" and that "[p]oints not presented in accordance with
this section will be disregarded, except that the appellate
court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented");
see also State v. Long, 98 Hawai#i 348, 353, 48 P.3d 595, 600
(2002) (affirming that "a 'lack of foundation' objection
generally is insufficient to preserve foundational issues for
appeal because such an objection does not advise the trial court
of the problems with the foundation").
Even if Yake did not waive this issue, the State
adduced sufficient evidence to establish that Officer
Keli#ipa#akaua's training was in accordance with the
manufacturer's requirements. As one of the two prongs necessary
to lay foundation for the admission of a radar speed measurement,
the State must demonstrate the "nature and extent of an officer's
training in the operation of the laser gun meets the requirements
indicated by the manufacturer." State v. Amiral, 132 Hawai#i
170, 178, 319 P.3d 1178, 1186 (2014) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, Officer Keli#ipa#akaua testified that: (1) his
radar came with a manual, and the manufacturer's name, Applied
Concepts, was on the manual, (2) in his recruit class, he
received three days (24 hours) of training with Sergeant
Christopher Gali on the doppler-based radar where he learned the
overall principles of the doppler and how it measures speed, he
was given practical experience using the radar, and he passed a
written test, (3) in December 2015, he received two days of
training with Applied Concepts from a certified instructor to
become an instructor himself, (4) in 2018, he participated in
another instructor course provided by Applied Concepts, (5) to
use the device, Applied Concepts requires reading and following
the manual, (6) the manual he received and used during training
was specific to the Stalker DSR 2X, which was the model he used
to measure the speed of Yake's car, (7) he thoroughly read the
manual and could summarize the manual, (8) the training he
received from Applied Concepts corresponded with the contents of
the manual, (9) he passed the tests given and became an
instructor, and (10) he was trained to National Highway Traffic
Safety Association standards.
The District Court found Officer Keli#ipa#akaua's
testimony credible, and we hold that Officer Keli#ipa#akaua's
testimony was sufficient to establish that he was qualified to
operate his speed-reading device. See State v. Geis, 147 Hawai#i
625, 465 P.3d 1072, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2020 WL 3317780, at *1
(App. June 18, 2020) (SDO) (holding that similar evidence by the
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"State established that Officer [Keli#ipa#akaua] was qualified to
operate his Stalker DSR 2X radar").
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the District Court's
May 11, 2021 "Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment."
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 25, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Aubrey M.M. Bento,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Stephen L. Frye, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
County of Hawai#i,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
4