State v. Taylor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
06-NOV-2025
07:52 AM
Dkt. 83 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADAM Y. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

This case involves Defendant-Appellant Adam Y.

Taylor's (Taylor) conviction for violation of an order for

protection. Taylor appeals from the October 20, 2023 "Judgment

of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" (Judgment) entered

by the Family Court of the First Circuit 1 (family court). For

the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Judgment.

1 The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellee State of

Hawaiʻi (State) charged Taylor by Complaint with four counts of

Violation of an Order for Protection in violation of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11(a)(1)(A) (2018). 2 Taylor pleaded

not guilty. The family court granted Taylor's motion to sever

Count 4 3 from Counts 1 to 3. In October 2023, Taylor's case went

to trial on Counts 1 to 3. The jury found Taylor not guilty as

to Counts 1 and 3 but found him guilty as to Count 2. 4 The

family court sentenced Taylor to a two-year term of probation.

2 At the time Taylor was charged, HRS § 586-11(a)(1)(A) stated,

(a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant
to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who
knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is
guilty of a misdemeanor. A person convicted under this section
shall undergo domestic violence intervention at any available
domestic violence program as ordered by the court. The court
additionally shall sentence a person convicted under this section
as follows:

(1) For a first conviction for violation of the order
for protection:

(A) That is in the nature of non-domestic abuse,
the person may be sentenced to a jail sentence
of forty-eight hours and be fined not more than
$150; provided that the court shall not
sentence a defendant to pay a fine unless the
defendant is or will be able to pay the fine[.]

3 In November 2023, the family court entered a nolle prosequi as to
Count 4.

4 Count 2 of the Complaint states,

On or about September 28, 2022, in the City and
County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi, [Taylor] did
intentionally or knowingly violate the Order for Protection
issued in FC-DA No. 22-2094 on September 21, 2022 by the
Honorable Bryant Zane, Judge of the Family Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, pursuant to Chapter 586 of
(continued . . .)

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Taylor contends that the family court

"erred by accepting the guilty verdict and adjudging Taylor

guilty because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient

to support conviction." Taylor raises the following points of

error in this regard, contending that "there was insufficient

evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt that": (1)

"the message sent by [Taylor] on September 28, 2022, constituted

a violation of the order for protection because the order

allowed for limited contact and Taylor's conduct fell within the

exception"; and (2) "Taylor acted with the requisite intent to

or knowledge of violation of the order for protection when he

sent the September 28, 2022, message."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Taylor's points of error as follows:

Taylor contends that the evidence adduced at trial was

insufficient to support his conviction as to Count 2. He

contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the

electronic message he sent to the complaining witness (CW) on

4(. . . continued)
the [HRS], thereby committing the offense of Violation of
an Order for Protection in violation of Section 586-5.5 and
Section 586-11(a) of the [HRS]. [Taylor] is subject to
sentencing in accordance with Section 586-11(a)(1)(A) of
the [HRS], where the violation of the Order for Protection
was in the nature of non-domestic abuse.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

September 28, 2022, was prohibited by the order for protection.

He further maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove

that he sent that message in intentional or knowing violation of

the order for protection.

We review Taylor's contentions of error under the

following 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 Hawaiʻi 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)

(citations 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. (cleaned up).

Here, the record reflects that the CW obtained an

order for protection against Taylor in the family court. The

order for protection was admitted into evidence at trial as the

State's Exhibit 1-A. Section III of the order for protection

governs contact between the parties, and provides, in relevant

part,

1. [Taylor] is prohibited from contacting [the CW], unless
allowed by this order.

2. [Taylor] is prohibited from telephoning, writing,
electronically communicating (for example: no recorded
message, pager, email, text message, instant message,

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

etc.) or communicating through third parties with [the
CW] unless allowed by this order.

. . . .

5. [Taylor] may have LIMITED contact with [the CW] for the
purpose of:

. . . .

 other: Parties may have limited contact with each
other through Our Family Wizard[5] for matters
regarding the parties['] minor children. Parties to
split cost of services. Parties shall register,
activate services within 48 hours.

. . . .

 Parties may have 3rd party contact through their
attorneys to coordinate pick up of [Taylor's]
property at the residence and for the purpose of
remote mediation sessions.

(Emphasis added.)

The CW testified that, pursuant to the order for

protection, Taylor and the CW were ordered to communicate

through Our Family Wizard "only regarding our minor children."

Taylor and the CW were ordered to communicate "through [their]

lawyers if it is something regarding the divorce." The CW

testified that, on September 28, 2022, Taylor sent her a message

via Our Family Wizard. The message, which was admitted into

evidence as the State's Exhibit 2 and read by Taylor in court,

stated: "[P]lease send kids with play clothes and shoes.

[A]lso[,] please send any mail as well as paperwork [o]n top of

my [nightstand,] if possible. [T]hank you." (Emphasis added.)

The CW construed Taylor's message as violating the terms of the

5 Our Family Wizard is a co-parenting messaging application.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

order for protection, and she "felt like [Taylor] was reaching

and seeing what he could get away with."

The only evidence that Taylor's message related to the

children was introduced through Taylor's testimony. Taylor

testified that the "paperwork" referenced in the September 28,

2022 message contained "documents regarding the [Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO)] and CSEA, which is Child Support

Enforcement Agency, so directly related with the kids." On

cross-examination, Taylor testified that he used Our Family

Wizard to communicate with the CW "[o]nly about matters

regarding the kids." Taylor did not, however, testify that the

"any mail" referenced in his message related to the children.

Whether the "paperwork" contained TRO and CSEA

documents was for the jury to decide based on Taylor's

credibility, and "it is not for the appellate court to second-

guess the jury." State v. Griffin, 126 Hawai‘i 40, 56, 266 P.3d

448, 464 (App. 2011) (citing State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw. App.

448, 457, 877 P.2d 891, 895 (App. 1994). ("[T]his court will

not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence, or interfere with

a jury decision based on the credibility of witnesses or the

weight of the evidence.")).

Furthermore, proving state of mind by direct evidence

is difficult. "Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be

read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the circumstances." State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d

924, 934 (1992) (cleaned up). Here, Taylor was informed of the

terms of the order for protection, which distinguished between

using Our Family Wizard for matters related to the children and

having third-party contact through their attorneys to coordinate

the pickup of Taylor's personal property. Taylor's message

requesting that the CW "please send any mail as well as

paperwork [o]n top of my [nightstand,] if possible" fails to

relate to the children on its face, and it is fair to infer that

Taylor was aware that his message to the CW did not comply with

the order for protection. See HRS § 702-206(2)(a) (2014) ("A

person acts knowingly with respect to his conduct when he is

aware that his conduct is of that nature.").

We therefore conclude that, when viewing the evidence

in the strongest light for the prosecution, there was sufficient

evidence in the record to support Taylor's conviction on Count

2. Accordingly, we affirm the Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 6, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Presiding Judge
Seth Patek,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Stephen K. Tsushima, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
06-NOV-2025
07:52 AM
Dkt. 83 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADAM Y. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

This case involves Defendant-Appellant Adam Y.

Taylor's (Taylor) conviction for violation of an order for

protection. Taylor appeals from the October 20, 2023 "Judgment

of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" (Judgment) entered

by the Family Court of the First Circuit 1 (family court). For

the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Judgment.

1 The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellee State of

Hawaiʻi (State) charged Taylor by Complaint with four counts of

Violation of an Order for Protection in violation of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11(a)(1)(A) (2018). 2 Taylor pleaded

not guilty. The family court granted Taylor's motion to sever

Count 4 3 from Counts 1 to 3. In October 2023, Taylor's case went

to trial on Counts 1 to 3. The jury found Taylor not guilty as

to Counts 1 and 3 but found him guilty as to Count 2. 4 The

family court sentenced Taylor to a two-year term of probation.

2 At the time Taylor was charged, HRS § 586-11(a)(1)(A) stated,

(a) Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant
to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who
knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is
guilty of a misdemeanor. A person convicted under this section
shall undergo domestic violence intervention at any available
domestic violence program as ordered by the court. The court
additionally shall sentence a person convicted under this section
as follows:

(1) For a first conviction for violation of the order
for protection:

(A) That is in the nature of non-domestic abuse,
the person may be sentenced to a jail sentence
of forty-eight hours and be fined not more than
$150; provided that the court shall not
sentence a defendant to pay a fine unless the
defendant is or will be able to pay the fine[.]

3 In November 2023, the family court entered a nolle prosequi as to
Count 4.

4 Count 2 of the Complaint states,

On or about September 28, 2022, in the City and
County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi, [Taylor] did
intentionally or knowingly violate the Order for Protection
issued in FC-DA No. 22-2094 on September 21, 2022 by the
Honorable Bryant Zane, Judge of the Family Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, pursuant to Chapter 586 of
(continued . . .)

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Taylor contends that the family court

"erred by accepting the guilty verdict and adjudging Taylor

guilty because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient

to support conviction." Taylor raises the following points of

error in this regard, contending that "there was insufficient

evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt that": (1)

"the message sent by [Taylor] on September 28, 2022, constituted

a violation of the order for protection because the order

allowed for limited contact and Taylor's conduct fell within the

exception"; and (2) "Taylor acted with the requisite intent to

or knowledge of violation of the order for protection when he

sent the September 28, 2022, message."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Taylor's points of error as follows:

Taylor contends that the evidence adduced at trial was

insufficient to support his conviction as to Count 2. He

contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the

electronic message he sent to the complaining witness (CW) on

4(. . . continued)
the [HRS], thereby committing the offense of Violation of
an Order for Protection in violation of Section 586-5.5 and
Section 586-11(a) of the [HRS]. [Taylor] is subject to
sentencing in accordance with Section 586-11(a)(1)(A) of
the [HRS], where the violation of the Order for Protection
was in the nature of non-domestic abuse.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

September 28, 2022, was prohibited by the order for protection.

He further maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove

that he sent that message in intentional or knowing violation of

the order for protection.

We review Taylor's contentions of error under the

following 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 Hawaiʻi 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)

(citations 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. (cleaned up).

Here, the record reflects that the CW obtained an

order for protection against Taylor in the family court. The

order for protection was admitted into evidence at trial as the

State's Exhibit 1-A. Section III of the order for protection

governs contact between the parties, and provides, in relevant

part,

1. [Taylor] is prohibited from contacting [the CW], unless
allowed by this order.

2. [Taylor] is prohibited from telephoning, writing,
electronically communicating (for example: no recorded
message, pager, email, text message, instant message,

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

etc.) or communicating through third parties with [the
CW] unless allowed by this order.

. . . .

5. [Taylor] may have LIMITED contact with [the CW] for the
purpose of:

. . . .

 other: Parties may have limited contact with each
other through Our Family Wizard[5] for matters
regarding the parties['] minor children. Parties to
split cost of services. Parties shall register,
activate services within 48 hours.

. . . .

 Parties may have 3rd party contact through their
attorneys to coordinate pick up of [Taylor's]
property at the residence and for the purpose of
remote mediation sessions.

(Emphasis added.)

The CW testified that, pursuant to the order for

protection, Taylor and the CW were ordered to communicate

through Our Family Wizard "only regarding our minor children."

Taylor and the CW were ordered to communicate "through [their]

lawyers if it is something regarding the divorce." The CW

testified that, on September 28, 2022, Taylor sent her a message

via Our Family Wizard. The message, which was admitted into

evidence as the State's Exhibit 2 and read by Taylor in court,

stated: "[P]lease send kids with play clothes and shoes.

[A]lso[,] please send any mail as well as paperwork [o]n top of

my [nightstand,] if possible. [T]hank you." (Emphasis added.)

The CW construed Taylor's message as violating the terms of the

5 Our Family Wizard is a co-parenting messaging application.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

order for protection, and she "felt like [Taylor] was reaching

and seeing what he could get away with."

The only evidence that Taylor's message related to the

children was introduced through Taylor's testimony. Taylor

testified that the "paperwork" referenced in the September 28,

2022 message contained "documents regarding the [Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO)] and CSEA, which is Child Support

Enforcement Agency, so directly related with the kids." On

cross-examination, Taylor testified that he used Our Family

Wizard to communicate with the CW "[o]nly about matters

regarding the kids." Taylor did not, however, testify that the

"any mail" referenced in his message related to the children.

Whether the "paperwork" contained TRO and CSEA

documents was for the jury to decide based on Taylor's

credibility, and "it is not for the appellate court to second-

guess the jury." State v. Griffin, 126 Hawai‘i 40, 56, 266 P.3d

448, 464 (App. 2011) (citing State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw. App.

448, 457, 877 P.2d 891, 895 (App. 1994). ("[T]his court will

not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence, or interfere with

a jury decision based on the credibility of witnesses or the

weight of the evidence.")).

Furthermore, proving state of mind by direct evidence

is difficult. "Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be

read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the circumstances." State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d

924, 934 (1992) (cleaned up). Here, Taylor was informed of the

terms of the order for protection, which distinguished between

using Our Family Wizard for matters related to the children and

having third-party contact through their attorneys to coordinate

the pickup of Taylor's personal property. Taylor's message

requesting that the CW "please send any mail as well as

paperwork [o]n top of my [nightstand,] if possible" fails to

relate to the children on its face, and it is fair to infer that

Taylor was aware that his message to the CW did not comply with

the order for protection. See HRS § 702-206(2)(a) (2014) ("A

person acts knowingly with respect to his conduct when he is

aware that his conduct is of that nature.").

We therefore conclude that, when viewing the evidence

in the strongest light for the prosecution, there was sufficient

evidence in the record to support Taylor's conviction on Count

2. Accordingly, we affirm the Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 6, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Presiding Judge
Seth Patek,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Stephen K. Tsushima, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

7