Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals order addresses a defendant's appeal of an excessive speeding conviction. While the court found substantial evidence supporting the admission of the lidar speed reading, it determined that the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy to ensure the defendant's knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional right to testify. Consequently, the court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State presented substantial evidence establishing the proper foundation for admission of the lidar speed reading.
- Whether the trial court’s colloquy satisfied Tachibana requirements, rendering the waiver of the right to testify knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and whether any violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holdings
- The conviction is supported by substantial evidence; the State satisfied both the training and testing prongs for the lidar device.
- The colloquy was deficient; the waiver was not valid; the conviction is vacated and the case remanded because the violation was not harmless.
Key quotations
“Okay. So, Ms. Bayanbat, as I mentioned at the beginning of trial, you have a constitutional right to testify in your own defense, and although you should consult with [your counsel] regarding your decision to testify, it is your decision, and no one can prevent you from testifying should you choose to do so. If you decide to testify, again, a reminder, the prosecutor can question or cross-examine you if you testify.”
“We conclude the State demonstrated, through the testimony of Officer Ah Nee, that both the testing prong and training prong were satisfied. There was substantial evidence supporting Bayanbat's conviction for Excessive Speeding.” (at 180)
Factual background
The State proved that Officer Ah Nee used a lidar device to measure Bayanbat's speed. The State presented testimony that the device had been tested for accuracy and that Officer Ah Nee had received the required training. Bayanbat chose not to testify after the State rested, following a colloquy on the right to testify.
Procedural history
Bayanbat was convicted in a bench trial of excessive speeding under Hawaiʻi Rev. Stat. §291C‑105(a)(1) and (a)(2). The conviction was appealed on two grounds: lack of substantial evidence for the lidar speed reading and an invalid waiver of the right to testify due to a deficient Tachibana colloquy.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.