State v. Smith ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-MAY-2020
08:22 AM
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
WILLIAM K. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(WAIANAE DIVISION)
(CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, Chan, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant William K. Smith (Smith) appeals
from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, filed on
January 28, 2019 (Judgment), in the District Court of the First
Circuit, Waianae Division (District Court).1/
Smith was convicted of Harassment, in violation of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1)(a) (2014).2/
1/
The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided.
2/
HRS § 711-1106(1)(a) states:
§ 711-1106 Harassment. (1) A person commits the
offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or
alarm any other person, that person:
(continued...)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Smith raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that there was insufficient evidence to convict him
where the credible evidence established that he did not act with
the requisite intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the complaining
witness (CW).
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 by the parties, we
resolve Smith's point of error as follows:
We conclude that when the evidence adduced at trial is
considered in the strongest light for the prosecution, there was
substantial evidence to convict Smith of Harassment. See State
v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31
(2007).
CW testified that Smith interrupted her conversation
with a neighbor, at CW's house, with profanity-laced comments.
After she told Smith to stop, he threw two chairs at her. CW
then told Smith to leave, but he instead picked up a white chair.
When CW attempted to grab the white chair, Smith would not
release it and shoved the white chair into CW's leg causing a
scratch and bleeding. Smith thereby subjected CW to offensive
physical contact by shoving a chair into her leg causing a
scratch and bleeding.
2/
(...continued)
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches
another person in an offensive manner or subjects
the other person to offensive physical contact[.]
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Smith points to allegedly conflicting statements made
by CW to argue that her testimony supporting Smith's requisite
intent was not credible. However, as the Hawai#i appellate
courts have often stated:
Verdicts based on conflicting evidence will not be set aside
where there is substantial evidence to support the trier of
fact's findings. We have defined substantial evidence as
credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and
probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to
support a conclusion. It is well-settled that an appellate
court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence;
this is the province of the trier of fact.
State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai#i 255, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999)
(format altered).
We conclude that, based on the testimonial and
circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences arising from
Smith's conduct, there was substantial evidence that Smith acted
with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm CW, when he refused to
stop his conduct, leave CW's residence, and when Smith picked up
a white chair that eventually led to him shoving the white chair
into CW. See State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai#i 85, 92, 976 P.2d 399,
406 (1999).
For these reasons, the District Court's January 28,
2019 Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 29, 2020.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Harrison L. Kiehm,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Donn Fudo,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Keith H. Hiraoka
City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
3