Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals order affirms the defendant’s conviction for abuse of a family or household member following a bench trial. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing there was no proof he intentionally kicked the complaining witness or that a bruise was consistent with a kick. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court found the trial record supported the conviction and affirmed the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether there was substantial evidence that Noe acted intentionally or knowingly in kicking the complaining witness.
- Whether there was substantial evidence that the bruise on the complaining witness's forearm was consistent with a kick.
Holdings
- The appellate court held that there was substantial evidence that Noe acted intentionally or knowingly, affirming the conviction.
- The appellate court held that the bruise was consistent with a kick, finding substantial evidence supporting the conviction.
Key quotations
“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.”
Factual background
The State proved that the complaining witness (CW) testified Noe kicked her with his foot, causing a bruise on her forearm. Noe testified his foot may have made contact but denied intent. The Family Court found the CW's testimony more credible and convicted Noe of abuse of a family or household member.
Procedural history
Noe was convicted in a bench trial of abuse of a family or household member under HRS §709-906(6). He appealed, arguing lack of substantial evidence of intent and of the bruise being consistent with a kick.