Opinion
No. CAAP–13–0000203.
02-05-2015
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Evans Nathan GUYTON, Defendant–Appellant.
James S. Tabe, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant. Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
James S. Tabe, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.
Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
FUJISE, Presiding Judge and REIFURTH, J., with LEONARD, J., dissenting.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant–Appellant Evans Nathan Guyton (Guyton) appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, entered on February 22, 2013, in the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division (District Court). After a bench trial, the District Court found Guyton guilty of Violation of Restraining Order or Injunction Against Harassment (Violating an Injunction), pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 604–10.5 (Supp.2014), and sentenced him to pay a $500 fine.
The Honorable Richard B. Berman presided.
On appeal, Guyton argues that the District Court wrongly convicted him of Violating an Injunction based on insufficient evidence. Related to this argument is his contention that Conclusion of Law (COL) 7 in the District Court's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, is. clearly erroneous. Guyton asks this court to reverse his conviction.
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 Guyton's points of error as follows:
Guyton's conviction is based on sufficient evidence, and COL 7 is not wrong because (1) the District Court convicted Guyton based on his conduct of entering or visiting Petitioner–Appellee John Varel's (Varel's) “residence”; and (2) there is substantial evidence showing Guyton (a) knew that “residence,” as used in the injunction, encompassed Varel's entire property, see Schwab v. Arivoshi, 58 Haw. 25, 35, 564 P.2d 135, 141 (1977), and (b) knowingly entered or visited Varel's property. See HRS § 702–206 (2014); State v. Birdsall, 88 Hawai‘i 1, 8, 960 P.2d 729, 736 (1998).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, entered on February 22, 2013, in the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division, is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion by LEONARD, J.
I respectfully dissent because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction of Defendant–Appellant Evans Nathan Guyton (Guyton) of Violation of Restraining Order or Injunction Against Harassment, pursuant to HRS § 604–10.5 (Supp.2014).
Having considered the record, and the submission of the parties, I conclude that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Guyton intentionally or knowingly “enter[ed] and/or visit[ed] the premises including yard and garage of the residence, and/or place of employment of [John Varel].” Even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the State failed to establish that the area where Guyton was observed was part of “the premises including yard and garage of the residence, and/or place of employment of [John Varel].” See, e.g., State v. Reinhart, No. 27177 (Sept. 8, 2008) (SDO), reversing State v. Reinhart, No. 27177 (App. March 10, 2008) (SDO).
Accordingly, I would reverse the District Court's February 22, 2013 Judgment.