State v. Noe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-JUN-2025
07:48 AM
Dkt. 52 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
MATTHEW NOE, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1FFC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting C.J., and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Matthew Noe (Noe) appeals from the
Judgment of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry entered on
December 29, 2022, in the Family Court of the First Circuit
(Family Court).1/ Following a bench trial, Noe was convicted of
Abuse of Family or Household Members, in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906(6).2/ On appeal, he contends
there was no substantial evidence to support the conviction.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve

1/
The Honorable Gale L.F. Ching presided.
2/
HRS § 709-906(6) (Supp. 2021) provides, in relevant part:
It shall be a petty misdemeanor for a person to
intentionally or knowingly strike, shove, kick, or otherwise
touch a family or household member in an offensive manner;
subject the family member or household member to offensive
physical contact; or exercise coercive control, as defined
in section 586-1, over a family or household member and the
person shall be sentenced as provided in sections 706-640
and 706-663.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Noe's contentions as follows, and affirm.
Noe contends there was no substantial evidence that:
(1) he acted intentionally or knowingly in allegedly kicking the
complaining witness (CW) and (2) a bruise on the CW's forearm, as
shown on State's Exhibit 1, was "consistent with a kick."
We review the sufficiency of evidence on appeal as
follows:

Evidence 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. Yuen, 154 Hawai#i 434, 444, 555 P.3d 121, 131 (2024)
(brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Richie, 88 Hawai#i 19, 33,
960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998)).
In order to convict Noe of abuse of a family or
household member, the State was required to prove that he
intentionally or knowingly struck, shoved, kicked, or otherwise
touched the CW in an offensive manner or subjected the CW to
offensive physical contact. HRS § 709-906(6).
At trial, the CW testified that Noe kicked her with his
foot and that his foot came into contact with the CW's forearm.
Noe testified, among other things, that his foot "may have" made
contact with the CW. The Family Court found the CW's testimony
"more credible." Noe argues there is no substantial evidence
that the bruise on the CW's forearm shown in State's Exhibit 1 is
"consistent with a kick," but that ignores the CW's testimony
that Noe's foot came into contact with her forearm. "An
appellate court will not pass upon the trial judge's decisions
with respect to the credibility of witnesses and the weight of
the evidence, because this is the province of the trial judge."
State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai#i 131, 139, 913 P.2d 57, 65 (1996)
(citing Domingo v. State, 76 Hawai#i 237, 242, 873 P.2d 775, 780
(1994), and others).
Noe also argues there is no substantial evidence that
he kicked the CW intentionally or knowingly. He points to the
CW's statement at trial, "I don't think he meant to kick me

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

anywhere." This statement, however, was only part of the CW's
response to the question, "Where did he kick you?" The CW
responded in full, "I don't think he meant to kick me anywhere.
He just kicked me, and I did like this, and he hit the -- hit
right in my arm."
Based on all of the evidence presented at trial,
considered in the strongest light for the prosecution, we
conclude there was substantial evidence from which the Family
Court could reasonably have inferred that Noe acted intentionally
or knowingly with respect to his conduct. See State v. Calaycay,
145 Hawai#i 186, 200, 449 P.3d 1184, 1198 (2019) ("[T]he mind of
an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct, and
inferences fairly drawn from all of the circumstances." (quoting
State v. Kiese, 126 Hawai#i 494, 502-03, 273 P.3d 1180, 1188-89
(2012))). In sum, there was substantial evidence that Noe
intentionally or knowingly struck, kicked, or otherwise touched
the CW in an offensive manner or subjected the CW to offensive
physical contact. On this record, the evidence was sufficient to
support Noe's conviction.
For the reasons discussed above, the Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry entered on December 29,
2022, in the Family Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 17, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Tarita N. Keohokalole-Look, Acting Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Loren J. Thomas, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

3