NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
23-JUN-2023
08:01 AM
Dkt. 50 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAUL H. STERN, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISON
(CASE NO. 3DTC-19-053119)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Paul H. Stern (Stern) appeals from
the December 16, 2021 "Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of
Amended Judgment" (Judgment) convicting Stern of driving without
a license (DWOL) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 286-102(b),1 entered by the District Court of the Third Circuit
(District Court).2
1 HRS § 286-102(b) (2020) provides, in relevant part: "[a] person
operating the following category or combination of categories of motor
vehicles shall be examined as provided in section 286-108 and duly licensed
by the examiner of drivers: (1) Mopeds . . . ."
"Operate" is defined under HRS § 291E-1 (2020) as "to drive or
assume actual physical control of a vehicle upon a public way, street, road,
or highway . . . ."
2 The Honorable Kimberly B. Taniyama presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On appeal, Stern raises a single point of error:
insufficiency of the evidence in that Plaintiff-Appellee State
of Hawai‘i (State) failed to adduce evidence that Stern was
(1) the driver of the moped stopped by police on May 1, 2019,
and (2) the person whose driver's license records were reflected
in State's Exhibit 1.
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 Stern's contention as follows, and affirm.
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal,
the court applies the following deferential standard of review:
[E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered
in the strongest light for the prosecution when the
appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such
evidence to support a conviction; the same standard
applies whether the case was before a judge or jury.
The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established
beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was
substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the
trier of fact.
State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). "Substantial
evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality
and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to
support a conclusion."
Id. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). In a bench trial, the trial judge, as the trier
of fact, "is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences
under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence."
State v. Batson,
73 Haw. 236, 249,
831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992)
(citation omitted).
(1) During a bench trial, the citing officer
identified Stern, testified that he observed Stern operating a
moped on May 1, 2019, and explained that he was able to identify
Stern based on "many interactions in the past" and them
"know[ing] each other." Stern did not object to the officer's
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
identification of him. The District Court found the officer's
identification of Stern credible.
"It is well-settled that 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. Mattiello, 90 Hawai‘i 255, 259, 978 P.2d 693,
697 (1999) (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets
omitted; block quote format changed).
On this record, and considering the evidence in the
strongest light for the prosecution, see Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i at
49, 237 P.3d at 1115, there was substantial evidence that Stern
was the operator of the moped.
(2) At trial, the officer identified Stern and
testified that Stern told him he did not have a license, and
that the officer obtained Stern's date of birth from a State and
County "record management database," which provided Stern's date
of birth. The District Court found the officer credible as to
how he became familiar with Stern's date of birth.
The administrator for the Vehicle Registration and
Licensing Division of the Department of Finance for the County
of Hawai‘i, which keeps records regarding licensing statuses in
the ordinary course of business, testified that, prior to coming
to court, she conducted an inquiry as to the licensing status of
an individual named "Paul Stern" with the same date of birth
provided during the officer's testimony, and generated a
certified document containing the results of her inquiry. The
administrator identified State's Exhibit 1 as the certified
document containing the results of her inquiry. The District
Court accepted Exhibit 1 into evidence without objection from
Stern. The administrator testified that the individual in
Exhibit 1 did not have a valid Hawai‘i driver's license on May 1,
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
2019, and had a "Not Status" in the State of Pennsylvania,
indicating a license suspension or revocation there.
The foregoing provided sufficient evidence for the
District Court to make a reasonable and rational inference that
Stern was the individual identified in Exhibit 1. See Batson,
73 Haw. at 249,
831 P.2d at 931.
For these reasons, the December 16, 2021 "Amended
Judgment and Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment," entered by
District Court of the Third Circuit, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 23, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Jon N. Ikenaga,
Presiding Judge
Deputy Public Defender
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Nathan A. Wersal,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
County of Hawai‘i Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
4
