State v. Shi ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
12-JAN-2023
11:31 AM
Dkt. 52 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WEI SHI, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Chan, JJ.)
After a bench trial, Defendant-Appellant Wei Shi was
convicted of the offense of Prostitution in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1200(1)(b) (2014). He appeals from
the "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order" entered by the
District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, on
July 29, 2021.1 He contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and that the
State's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the
Judgment.
We review a ruling on a motion for judgment of
acquittal by applying the same standard applied by the trial
court: "whether, upon the evidence viewed in the light most
1
The Honorable Michael A. Marr presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
favorable to the prosecution and in full recognition of the
province of the trier of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly
conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Carroll, 146
Hawai#i 138, 150, 456 P.3d 502, 514 (2020) (brackets omitted).
Similarly, the standard of review for sufficiency of
the evidence is:
whether, upon the evidence viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution and in full recognition of the
province of the trier of fact, the evidence is sufficient to
support a prima facie case so that a reasonable mind might
fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficient
evidence to support a prima facie case requires substantial
evidence as to every material element of the offense
charged. Substantial evidence as to every material element
of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of
sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of
reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Under such a
review, we give full play to the right of the fact finder to
determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw
justifiable inferences of fact.
State v. Bowman, 137 Hawai#i 398, 405, 375 P.3d 177, 184 (2016)
(citation omitted).
HRS § 712-1200 (2014) provides, in relevant part:
(1) A person commits the offense of prostitution if
the person:
. . . .
(b) Pays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay a fee to
another to engage in sexual conduct.
(2) As used in this subsection . . . "sexual
conduct" means "sexual penetration" . . . [as] defined in
section 707-700[.]
HRS § 707-700 (2014) provides, in relevant part:
"Sexual penetration" means:
(1) Vaginal intercourse . . . [or] fellatio[.]
Honolulu Police Department undercover police officer
Makalapua Monteilh testified at trial. She posted an
advertisement on AdultLook, a website where "escorts" post
advertisements. She explained that an escort is "[s]omeone who
provides sexual conduct for a fee." The district court admitted
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
State's Exhibit 1, a copy of the advertisement, into evidence.
JEFS 70, at 2. The advertisement contained a phone number.
On January 6, 2020, Officer Monteilh received a text
message at the phone number on the advertisement. The text
asked, "How much for full service?" She explained that "full
service" is street vernacular for vaginal intercourse and
fellatio. She replied in two separate texts — "250, hour; 200,
half hour." But the person canceled.
The same number texted Officer Monteilh again on
January 10, asking what time she was available. She asked the
person to remind her what they wanted. The reply was "[f]ull
service." She replied, "Can do." The person texted, "250[?]"
She agreed and gave the person an address and asked what the
person was wearing. The person replied, "orange clothing." She
asked for a name. The person replied, "Wei."
On January 10, 2020, Officer Monteilh met Shi at the
address she had texted. Shi was wearing an orange shirt.
Officer Monteilh motioned for Shi to come toward her. Shi walked
over. Officer Monteilh asked if Shi was Wei; he confirmed his
identity. She asked if he had $250.
He said, "yes."
She "asked him if he had condoms because he needed to
use the condoms for the sex and blow job, and he said no. He
asked where we could get some." Officer Monteilh told Shi to
follow her. He did. She signaled the other police officers on
her team. Shi was arrested.
Officer Monteilh's testimony and State's Exhibit 1,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was
sufficient to establish that Shi agreed or offered to pay a fee
to Officer Monteilh to engage in sexual conduct in violation of
HRS § 712-1200(1)(b). Shi's arguments to the contrary are
without merit. The district court did not err by denying Shi's
motion for judgment of acquittal.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment entered by the
district court on July 29, 2021, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 12, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Eric Lee Niemeyer, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Brian R. Vincent, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge
4