Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals summary disposition order affirms a Family Court's Order for Protection granted to Stephanie Haddad against Lorence Douglas Lapow. The appellant challenged the admission of security camera footage identifying him as the perpetrator of property damage and the trial court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the video evidence based on foundational testimony and credible findings, and correctly denied reconsideration as it merely sought to relitigate previously adjudicated matters.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court erred in admitting Haddad's security video without adequate foundation.
- Whether the family court erred in denying Lapow's motion for reconsideration of the Order for Protection.
Holdings
- The family court did not err; the video was admissible because adequate foundational facts were presented under Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule 901(a).
- The family court did not err; the motion was timely and the denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Key quotations
“For video evidence where no witness actually saw the events captured on the video, "adequate foundational facts must be presented to the trial court, so that the trial court can determine that the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the subject matter is what its proponent claims. This standard is, ultimately, the standard articulated under Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 901(a)."”
“HFCR Rule 59(e) requires that motions for reconsideration be filed within 10 days after entry of the order for which reconsideration is sought. But November 25, 2021 was a state holiday, Thanksgiving Day. HRS § 8-1 (2009). Thus, Lap's motion was timely filed on November 26, 2021.”
Factual background
Haddad filed an ex parte petition for a temporary restraining order alleging vandalism and property damage she attributed to Lapow, despite a non‑intimate relationship at the time. She presented a security‑camera video of an incident on October 22, 2021, identifying Lapow by gait and body type. The family court admitted the video and issued an Order for Protection on November 15, 2021. Lapow later moved for reconsideration, arguing the video lacked foundation and that his motion was timely.
Procedural history
The Family Court of the Second Circuit entered a temporary restraining order on November 2, 2021 and an Order for Protection on November 15, 2021. Lapow moved for reconsideration on November 26, 2021; the court denied the motion on January 7, 2022. Lapow appealed both the admission of a security video and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.