State v. Pedro ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    20-APR-2021
    08:03 AM
    Dkt. 65 SO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
    TERI WAINANI PEDRO, Defendant-Appellant
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    KONA DIVISION
    (CASE NO. 3DTA-17-00495)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Ginoza, C.J., and Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
    The State of Hawai#i (State) charged Defendant-
    Appellant Teri Wainani Pedro (Pedro) with Operating a Vehicle
    Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of
    Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1).1/           After a bench
    trial, the District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division
    (District Court), found Pedro guilty as charged of OVUII.2/
    1/
    HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) (Supp. 2016) provides as follows:
    (a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle
    under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or
    assumes actual physical control of a vehicle:
    (1)   While under the influence of alcohol in an
    amount sufficient to impair the person's normal
    mental faculties or ability to care for the
    person and guard against casualty[.]
    2/
    The Honorable Margaret K. Masunaga presided.
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Pedro appeals from the Judgment and Notice of Entry of
    Judgment (Judgment), entered on March 29, 2019, in the District
    Court. On appeal, Pedro contends that: (1) the District Court
    erred in admitting at trial the results of her horizontal gaze
    nystagmus (HGN) test as substantive evidence of intoxication; and
    (2) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction.
    As explained below, we affirm the District Court's Judgment.
    We resolve Pedro's arguments on appeal as follows.
    1.   Pedro argues that the District Court erred in
    admitting her HGN test results at trial on the sole ground that
    evidence of HGN test results is admissible only to determine
    probable cause for arrest, and not as substantive evidence of
    intoxication.
    In State v. Jones, 148 Hawai#i 152, 
    468 P.3d 166
    ,
    (2020), the Hawai#i Supreme Court recently addressed the question
    of whether standard field sobriety tests (SFSTs), which include
    the HGN test, "were admissible for the purpose of establishing
    substantive evidence of intoxication beyond probable cause." 
    Id. at 171
    , 
    468 P.3d 185
    . The supreme court held that "evidence of a
    driver's conduct and physical actions while performing a SFST is
    not only relevant to probable cause for an arrest, but is also
    admissible as indicia of whether a driver was OVUII beyond a
    reasonable doubt." 
    Id. at 172
    , 
    468 P.3d 186
    . Based on Jones, we
    conclude that Pedro's argument that evidence of HGN test results
    is categorically inadmissible as substantive evidence of
    intoxication is without merit.3/
    2.   Pedro argues that there was insufficient evidence
    to support her OVUII conviction because the State failed to show
    that: (1) she had been the driver of the subject vehicle
    3/
    Pedro does not contend that her HGN test results were otherwise
    inadmissible at trial due to lack of foundation. To the extent that Pedro
    intended to raise such a claim, we conclude that she waived it by failing to
    present any argument to support it. See Hawai #i Rules of Appellate Procedure
    Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived."); State v. Guidry,
    105 Hawai#i 222, 236-38, 
    96 P.3d 242
    , 256-58 (2004); State v. Fitzwater, 122
    Hawai#i 354, 370 n.10, 
    227 P.3d 520
    , 536 n.10 (2010). Indeed, in her reply
    brief, Pedro appears to confirm that she did not intend to raise a lack-of-
    foundation argument, stating: "[Pedro] does not concede that [the arresting
    officer] was properly trained and properly administered the HGN test, but
    argues that the HGN test should not have been admitted and relied upon as
    substantive evidence of [Pedro's] intoxication ." (Emphasis added.)
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    (operator element); and (2) assuming that she had been the
    driver, that she was under the influence of alcohol in an amount
    sufficient to impair her normal mental faculties or ability to
    care for herself and guard against casualty (alcohol impairment
    element).   We disagree.
    With respect to the operator element, the State
    presented evidence that on July 18, 2016, at about 5:00 a.m.,
    Pedro was outside an overturned pick-up truck involved in a
    single-vehicle accident; she admitted that "she was the driver;"
    she said she had come from a Jack-in–the Box; and the arresting
    officer detected the smell of Jack-In-the–Box food coming from
    Pedro and the vehicle.
    With respect to the alcohol impairment element, the
    State, among other things, presented evidence that the arresting
    officer detected the odor of an "intoxication beverage" coming
    from Pedro; her eyes were "red, glassy, . . . slightly watery[,]"
    and "kind of half closed," and she appeared to be "fazed[ and] a
    little confused"; the arresting officer had been trained to look
    for indicators of alcohol intoxication, which included red,
    watery, and glassy eyes, and the smell of alcohol; Pedro's truck
    appeared to have gone off the road, hit an embankment, and
    overturned before coming to rest upside-down in the middle of the
    highway; and Pedro performed poorly on the SFSTs. In particular,
    the arresting officer observed nystagmus in both of Pedro's eyes
    during the tracking, maximum deviation, and forty-five degree
    phases of the HGN test; during the walk-and-turn test, Pedro
    could not keep her balance while receiving instructions and
    swayed heavily from left to right; in performing the test, Pedro
    failed to walk heel to toe as instructed, leaving gaps of one to
    four inches on every step, kept her arms raised the entire time,
    and made an improper turn; during the instructional phase of the
    one-leg stand test, Pedro heavily swayed from front to back and
    left to right; in performing the test, Pedro swayed, hopped, put
    her foot down, and raised her arms. When viewed in the light
    most favorable to the prosecution, State v. Ildefonso, 
    72 Haw. 573
    , 576-77, 
    827 P.2d 648
    , 651 (1992), we conclude that there was
    sufficient evidence to support Pedro's OVUII conviction.
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment and
    Notice of Entry of Judgment, entered on March 29, 2019, in the
    District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division, is affirmed.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 20, 2021.
    On the briefs:
    /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Andrew I. Kim,                        Chief Judge
    Deputy Public Defender,
    for Defendant-Appellant.
    /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
    Stephen L. Frye,                      Associate Judge
    Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
    County of Hawai#i,
    for Plaintiff-Appellee.               /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Associate Judge
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAAP-19-0000362

Filed Date: 4/20/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/20/2021