As mentioned before, Defendant also contends that HRS § 708-812(1)(a) is overbroad. This court, in State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 951 P.2d 934 (1998), explained that a defendant who raises an overbreadth claim must establish that he or she is personally affected: "The doctrine of overbreadth, although closely related to a vagueness claim, is distinct in that while a statute may be clear and precise in its terms, it may sweep so broadly that constitutionally protected conduct is included in its proscriptions."
"A [n] [FOF] is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aiken v. Ocean View Investments Co., 84 Haw. 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997) (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Haw. 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994))). An FOF is also clearly erroneous when "the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding."
"A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).
"A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed." State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).
Findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.See Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, 85 Haw. 7, 12, 936 P.2d 643, 648, reconsideration denied, 85 Haw. 196, 940 P.2d 403 (1997) (citation omitted). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed."State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998); see also Britt v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 86 Haw. 511, 516, 950 P.2d 695, 700 (1998). Kim v. Contractors License Bd., 88 Haw. 264, 269, 965 P.2d 806, 811 (1998).
State v. Bowe, 77 Haw. 51, 53, 881 P.2d 538, 540 (1994) (citation omitted). State v. Kane, 87 Haw. 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aickin v. Ocean View Inv. Co., 84 Haw. 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997)). B. Interpretation Of A Statute Or Ordinance
Statev. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 274, 921 P.2d 1170, 1175 (App. 1996) (quoting Kaneakua, 61 Haw. at 144, 597 P.2d at 594 (quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Adler, 108 Hawaii 169, 179, 118 P.3d 652, 662 (2005) (citing State v. Bui, 104 Hawai'i 462, 465, 92 P.3d 471, 474 (2004); State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 77, 951 P.2d 934, 940 (1998)). Moreover, "every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional, and a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt."
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. State v. Kane, 87 Hawai‘i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998). This court reviews a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo under the right/wrong standard.
A finding of fact is determined to be clearly erroneous when "the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding," or "despite evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction . . . that a mistake has been committed." Id. (first quoting Alejado v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 89 Hawai'i 221, 225, 971 P.2d 310, 314 (App. 1998); and then quoting State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998)). The circuit court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard.
"Under this . . . standard, we examine the facts and answer the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it. . . . Thus, a[COL] is not binding upon the appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness." State v. Kane, 87 Hawai'i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998). Troyer v. Adams, 102 Hawai'i 399, 409-10, 77 P.3d 83, 93-94 (2003) (quoting State v. Entrekin, 98 Hawai'i 221, 225, 47 P.3d 336, 340 (2002) (some brackets in original and some added)).