1AMHJBRAHY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 301ll
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE oF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWA1‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. 1
R1CHARD L. QUINN, Defendant-Appellant
18 19 1411 L~ “if"k!` wall
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. lDTC-09-O46099)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, C.J., Leonard and Reifurth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Richard L. Quinn
from the September 17,
(Quinn) appeals
2009 Judgment convicting him of reckless
in violation of section 291-2_of the Hawaii Revised
(2007), entered in the District Court of the First
Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court).V
driving,
Statutes
On appeal, Quinn argues that: (1) the district court
erred in applying the wrong standard for recklessness; and (2)
there was insufficient evidence of recklessness to support the
conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that there
was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and reverse
the Judgment of the district court.
There was insufficient evidence to convict Quinn of
reckless driving. A conviction for reckless driving requires
conscious awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to
the safety of others or property on the part of the defendant.
State v. Agard, 113 HawaiU.321, 322-23, 151 P.3d 802, 803-04
(2007). This means that there must be substantial evidence to
support an inference that "Defendant knew whether 'the safety of
persons or property‘ was in peril."
233, 240, 145 P.:>,d 776, 783 (App.
§§ 291-2 & 702-206(3)(a)).
State v. Moleta,
2006)
112 Hawafi
(quoting HAw. REv. STAr.
There was no evidence, at the time that Quinn entered
the intersection after looking right, then left, and then right,
and not observing any cross traffic, that Quinn knew of the
I|-'
\
The Honorable Les1ie Hayashi presided.
UH"`TL.;§
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ]N WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
presence of Officer Kaneko's vehicle prior to the near collision.
Consequently, we do not find the circumstances of Quinn's
decision to enter the intersection to be such that he consciously
disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the safety of
persons or property, which represented a gross deviation from the
standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in
the same situation. 7
“[T]he reckless standard is not to be indiscriminately
applied," as "the conscious disregard of every risk of harm to a
protected social interest should not, in every instance, be
sufficient to impose penal liability for an untoward
eventuality." Agard, 113 Hawafi at 328, 151 P.3d at 809
(quoting Hmm RmL Smw. § 702-206 cmt.) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Although we take the evidence on appeal in this case
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see State v. Bui,
104 HawaiU_462, 467, 92 P.3d 471, 476 (2004), and defer to the
district court, as the trier of fact, with respect to questions
of credibility and weight of the evidence, see In re Doe, 107
HawaiU.12, 19, 108 P.3d 966, 973 (2005), we conclude that
Quinn's decision to enter the intersection under the
circumstances was not a gross deviation from the standard of
conduct that a law-abiding person would observe. As a result, we
conclude that it did not amount to reckless driving. Because
there was insufficient evidence to convict, we need not address
the remaining point of error.
Therefore, the Judgment entered on September 17, 2009
in the district court is reversed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawafi, July 7, 2010.
On the briefs:
Anthony L. Wong
(Kevin Sumida & Associates)
for Defendant-Appellant.
Delanie D. Prescott-Tate,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge