State v. Assaye

50 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fitzwater

    122 Haw. 354 (Haw. 2010)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that third-party records "are admissible as business records of the incorporating entity provided that it relies on the records, there are other indicia of reliability, and the requirements of [the Hawaii business records exception] are otherwise satisfied "

    Wallace, 80 Hawai'i at 412, 910 P.2d at 725 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai'i 204, 216 P.3d 1227 (2009), we recognized that similar requirements applied in the context of admitting evidence about the calibration of laser guns used to measure speed. Id. at 212, 216 P.3d at 1235 (characterizing the admission of evidence relating to testing of a laser gun which omitted any reference to whether the tests "were procedures recommended by the manufacturer" as "obviously inconsistent with this court's decision in Manewa").

  2. State v. Texeira

    465 P.3d 960 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    This court has previously considered, in certain contexts, whether the State must show that a measuring device was used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended procedures before allowing the measurement into evidence. Wallace, 80 Hawai‘i at 412, 910 P.2d at 725 (calibration of electronic balance for measuring the weight of narcotics); State v. Manewa, 115 Hawai‘i 343, 167 P.3d 336 (2007) (electronic balance and gas chromatograph mass spectrometers used to measure and identify controlled substances); State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 210-14, 216 P.3d 1227, 1233-37 (2009) (calibration of laser gun for measuring a vehicle's speed); State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawai‘i 354, 227 P.3d 520 (2010) (calibration of speedometers for speed check results). In Wallace, we held that the State failed to lay a sufficient foundation as to the accuracy of an electronic balance that was used to weigh the amount of cocaine found in the defendant's car.

  3. State v. Eid

    126 Hawaii 430 (Haw. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that a sufficient foundation was laid for the introduction of the results of “speed checks” obtained through the use of a device designed to verify the accuracy of a car's speedometer despite the absence of a manufacturer for the entire speed check device

    When a question arises regarding the necessary foundation for the introduction of evidence, the determination of whether proper foundation has been established lies within the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse.State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 210, 216 P.3d 1227, 1233 (2009) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).III. Discussion

  4. State v. Amiral

    301 P.3d 1266 (Haw. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    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 Amiral's point of error as follows. Sufficient foundation for admission of the laser gun reading requires evidence: (1) “[t]hat the [l]aser [g] un [w] as [t]ested [a]ccording [t]o [m]anufacturer [r]ecommended [p] rocedures[,]” State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 210, 216 P.3d 1227, 1233 (2009) and (2) “whether the nature and extent of an officer's training in the operation of a laser gun meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer[,]” Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238. The person proffering such foundational testimony should have personal knowledge of the manufacturer's recommendations for testing of the laser gun and of the laser gun testing according to said recommendations to overcome hearsay concerns, see Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i at 213, 216 P.3d at 1236 (analyzing the police officer's testimony consistent with State v. Manewa, 115 Hawai‘i 343, 354 167 P.3d 336, 347 (2007), where the “expert's ‘personal knowledge’ that was adduced through his testimony at trial was sufficient ‘to establish that the GCMSs were in proper working condition’ “ (quoting Manewa, 115 Hawai‘i at 354, 167 P.3d at 347)).

  5. State v. Apollonio

    130 Haw. 353 (Haw. 2013)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that " charge that fails to charge a requisite state of mind cannot be construed reasonably to state an offense and thus the charge is dismissed without prejudice because it violates due process."

    Petitioner also maintained that an adequate foundation was not laid because State v. Manewa, 115 Hawai‘i 343, 167 P.3d 336 (2007), required Respondent to introduce evidence that "the instrument has been inspected and serviced as required by the manufacturer." (Citing State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 217, 216 P.3d 1227, 1240 (2009) (Acoba, J. concurring).) B.

  6. State v. Apollonio

    284 P.3d 222 (Haw. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    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 Apollonio's points of error as follows. Sufficient foundation for admission of the laser gun reading requires evidence: (1) “that the laser gun was tested according to manufacturer recommended procedures[,]” State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 210, 216 P.3d 1227, 1233 (2009) (formatting altered); and (2) “whether the nature and extent of an officer's training in the operation of a laser gun meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer[,]” Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238. The person proffering such foundational testimony ‘should have personal knowledge of the manufacturer's recommendations for testing of the laser gun and of the laser gun testing according to said recommendations to overcome hearsay concerns.

  7. State v. Amiral

    132 Hawaii 170 (Haw. 2014)   Cited 25 times

    [132 Hawai'i 175] The State argued in closing argument that Officer Ondayog's testimony satisfied evidentiary requirements under State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘'i 204, 216 P.3d 1227 (2009). The State maintained that Officer Ondayog tested and operated the UltraLyte according to the manufacturer's recommended procedures

  8. State v. Ramos

    334 P.3d 777 (Haw. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times
    In Ramos, the State of Hawai‘i (State) represented that the manufacturer of the UltraLyte 20–20, the laser gun used in this case, had not set forth specific training requirements for the operation of the laser gun.

    ”In State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 216 P.3d 1227 (2009), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court addressed the necessary foundation for admission of a laser gun speed reading and held, first, that “the prosecution must prove that the laser gun's accuracy was tested according to procedures recommended by the manufacturer.” Id. at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238.

  9. State v. Gonzalez

    128 Haw. 314 (Haw. 2012)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that because the charge was deficient for failing to allege the requisite mens rea, dismissal of the charge without prejudice was mandated

    [128 Hawai'i 325] adequate foundation for the introduction of a speed reading from a laser gun, the State must demonstrate (1) that the laser gun's accuracy was tested according to manufacturer recommended procedures and determined to be operating properly prior to use, and (2) that the nature and extent of the officer's training in the operation of laser guns meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer. (Citing State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai‘i 204, 213–15, 216 P.3d 1227, 1236–38 (2009).) Defendant argues that the State met neither of the foundational requirements.

  10. State v. Pereira

    NO. CAAP-10-0000190 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)

    Sufficient foundation for admission of the laser gun reading requires evidence that the laser gun was tested in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended procedure, and that "the nature and extent of an officer's training in the operation of a laser gun meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer." State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai'i 204, 210, 215, 216 P.3d 1227, 1233, 1238 (2009). The person proffering such foundational testimony should have personal knowledge of the manufacturer's recommendations for testing of the laser gun and of the laser gun testing according to said recommendations to overcome hearsay concerns.