LAV*J L|BRARY
NO'I` FOR PUBLICATIONIN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 29743
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAfI
"?Ԥ
§
m
STATE OF HAWAfI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HONG GUO, Defendant-Appellant
99 =NHV lZ/(VH§H?Z
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(NORTH & SOUTH KONA DIVISION)
(CASE NO. 3DTI-08-O74324)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Foley, and Fujise, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Hong Guo (Guo) appeals pro se from
the Judgment against him for committing the traffic infraction of
speeding in a construction area, in violation of Hawaii Revised
(HRS) § 29lC-104 (2007 & Supp. 2009). The Judgment was
in the District Court of the Third
Statutes
2009,
filed on March 3,
Circuit (district court).9
I.
On September 15, 2008, Traffic Enforcement Officer
Thomas Koyanagi (Officer Koyanagi) of the HawaFi County Police
Department issued a citation to Guo for "speeding in [a]
The citation
construction zone," in violation of HRS § 29lC-104.
described the the location of the violation as "Queen Kaahumanu
Hwy/Makala to Palani Int."
At trial, Officer Koyanagi testified that while
following Gu0's car in a construction zone, Officer Koyanagi
measured the speed of Guo's car using a radar unit mounted on the
Officer Koyanagi
dashboard of Officer Koyanagi's vehicle.
V The Honorable Joseph P. Fl0rendo, Jr., presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
initially determined Guo's car to be traveling at thirty-seven
miles per hour and later at thirty-eight miles per hour. The
speed limit in the construction zone was twenty-five miles per
hour, and there was at least one posted sign indicating that
speed limit. Guo's car "pulled up to" Officer Koyanagi's right
at the intersection of Palani Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway.
Officer Koyanagi then measured the speed of Guo's car as they
traveled south on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, eventually stopping
Guo's car past the Henry Street intersection.
After the presentation of evidence and during his
closing argument, Guo stated that he "forgot to mention" that
Officer Koyanagi's testimony about where the officer measured
Guo's car speeding was different from the location indicated on
Guo's citation. The district court disputed Guo's recollection
of Officer Koyanagi's testimony, but asked if Officer Koyanagi
was available to clarify the matter. However, by that time,
Officer Koyanagi had apparently left the courthouse.
The district court found that Plaintiff-Appellee State
of HawaiH_(State) had proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Guo committed the traffic infraction of speeding in a
construction area. The district court further found that Officer
Koyanagi had "measured [Guo's] speed between the intersection of
Palani and Henry Street" at thirty-eight miles per hour in an
area where the speed limit was twenty-five miles per hour,
II.
On appeal, Guo contends that l) Officer Koyanagi was
not credible and therefore there was insufficient evidence to
prove the alleged violation; and 2) it was improper for Officer
Koyanagi to leave the courthouse and not be available to be
recalled as a witness to clarify his testimony. we affirm the
district court's Judgment.
There was sufficient evidence to support the district
court's determination that Guo had committed the traffic
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
infraction of speeding in a construction area. In evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State. See State v. Moleta, 122 Hawafi
233, 241, 145 P.3d 776, 784 (App. 2006). In addition, "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. Jenkins, 93 HawaiU_
87, lOl, 997 P.2d 13, 27 (2000) (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted). "Verdicts based on conflicting evidence will
not be set aside where there is substantial evidence to support
the trier of fact's findings." lQg at 100-Ol, 997 P.2d at 26-27
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
-Here, the district court apparently found Officer
Koyanagi's testimony credible despite the evidence and arguments
presented by Guo. When viewed in the light most favorable to the
State, Officer Koyanagi's testimony provided sufficient evidence
to support the district court's verdict.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
deciding not to reopen the trial to recall Officer Koyanagi. Guo
had the opportunity during the trial to cross-examine Officer
Koyanagi and to present evidence that Guo believed cast doubt on
the officer's testimony. Officer Koyanagi had apparently left
the courthouse and was not immediately available to be recalled.
Guo does not point to any rule or statute that was disregarded by
the district court in deciding not to recall Officer Koyanagi.
Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in failing to recall Officer
Koyanagi. See State v. Christian, 88 HawaiH.407, 417, 967 P.2d
239, 249 (l998) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to a
trial court's decision on whether to permit a party to reopen its
case for the purpose of submitting additional evidence).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPOR'QI`ER
III.
We affirm the Judgment filed on March »3, 2009, by the
district court.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawafi, May 2l, 2010
On the briefs: y § ' z 2
Jay T. Kimura Chief Judge
Mark D. Disher
Office of Prosecuting Attorney £2£MQH¢%Z?
County of Hawai‘i , '
for Plaintiff-Appellee Associate Judge
Hong Guo __
Defendant-Appellant Pro Se H¢,g“,)
Associate Ju