State v. Yokota

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-AUG-2024
08:16 AM
Dkt. 110 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAYTON YOKOTA, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth, and Nakasone, JJ.)

This appeal challenges Defendant-Appellant Dayton
Yokota's (Yokota) convictions for two counts of Abuse of a
Family or Household Member against his child, based on an
allegedly defective complaint under State v. Thompson and
allegedly insufficient evidence to reject Yokota's parental
discipline defense. We affirm because Yokota's challenge to the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

complaint was untimely, and there was sufficient evidence to
support the convictions.
Yokota appeals from the July 23, 2020 "Judgment and
Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" (Judgment) entered by
the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court). 1 Following
a jury-waived trial, Yokota was convicted as charged and
sentenced to probation with two days jail.
On appeal, Yokota raises three points of error, 2
contending that (1) the case must be dismissed pursuant to State
v. Thompson because the complaint did not comply with Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 805-1; 3 (2) there was insufficient
evidence that force was not justified as parental discipline
under HRS § 703-309; 4 and (3) the Family Court abused its
discretion by denying Yokota's Motion for New Trial on the basis
of newly-discovered evidence.

1 The Honorable Linda S. Martell presided.

2 Yokota's points of error have been numbered. See Hawai‘i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring numbered points of
error).

3 The previous version of HRS § 805-1 (2014) in effect at the time
Yokota was charged, required that a complaint requesting issuance of a
warrant for the accused, must either be "subscribed by the complainant under
oath," or "made by declaration in accordance with the rules of court." In
Thompson, issued in 2021 after Yokota's 2020 convictions, the supreme court
held that a complaint that did not comply with HRS § 805-1 for lack of a
supporting affidavit or declaration was "fatally defective," and could not be
used to issue an arrest warrant or penal summons. 150 Hawai‘i 262, 267-68,
500 P.3d 447, 452-53 (2021); see State v. Mortensen-Young, 152 Hawai‘i 385,
387, 526 P.3d 362, 364 (2023) (clarifying that HRS § 805-1 applies only to
complaints for a penal summons or an arrest warrants). The parties were
permitted to file supplemental briefs to address Thompson.

4 The parental discipline defense under HRS § 703-309(1) (2014),
entitled "Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care,
discipline, or safety of others," provides in pertinent part that the use of
force is "justifiable" by a parent if "[t]he force is employed with due
regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the
purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the
prevention or punishment of the minor's misconduct[.]"

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Yokota's points of error as follows, and affirm.
On March 13, 2020, the State charged Yokota by
Complaint with two counts of Abuse of Family or Household
Members under HRS § 709-906(1) and (5)(a). 5 The Complaint
alleged that Yokota hit his then four-year-old daughter, A.Y.,
with a belt, on or about March 6, 2020 in Count 1, and on or
about the time period between January 20, 2020 and January 22,
2020, in Count 2. The record reflected that at the time of the
incidents, Yokota and A.Y.'s mother, Kristi Kubota (Mother),
were separated but shared custody of A.Y.; that Yokota lived
with his mother, June Yokota (June), and his father, Wayne
Yokota (Wayne); and that on days when Yokota had custody, A.Y.
would stay with him at June and Wayne's home.
The Complaint was signed by a deputy prosecuting
attorney but not subscribed under oath by a complainant or
accompanied by a declaration pursuant to HRS § 805-1. Based on
the Complaint, the Family Court issued a March 19, 2020 penal
summons to Yokota, which was served on April 8, 2020, compelling
him to appear.
The following evidence was adduced at Yokota's July
2020 jury-waived trial. As to Count 2 (January 2020), Mother
testified that she discovered bruises on A.Y.'s back on January
22, 2020, after picking her up from a visitation with Yokota.
The following day, Mother took A.Y. to Pali Momi Medical Center
emergency room to have her examined, and Honolulu Police
Department (HPD) Officer Geri Lacson (Officer Lacson) took

5 HRS § 709-906 (2014), entitled "Abuse of family or household
members; penalty," provides that it is "unlawful for any person . . . to
physically abuse a family or household member[.]"

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

photographs of A.Y.'s injuries. As to Count 1 (March 2020),
Mother testified that she again discovered bruises on A.Y.'s
back on March 9, 2020, after picking her up from school
following a weekend visitation with Yokota. Later that same
day, Mother took A.Y. to Pali Momi Medical Center, where HPD
Officer Brian Sekiya (Officer Sekiya) took photographs of A.Y.'s
injuries. The photographs of A.Y.'s injuries taken by the
officers on both occasions were admitted into evidence.
As to Count 2, Officer Lacson testified that: the
bruises on A.Y.'s back depicted in the photographs she took were
generally consistent with what she personally observed at Pali
Momi Medical Center, but were "darker in person"; and when the
officer asked A.Y. whether her back hurt, A.Y. would not give an
affirmative response but instead "giggled and shied away behind
her mother[.]"
As to Count 1, Officer Sekiya testified that the
bruises on A.Y.'s back depicted in the photographs he took were
consistent with the "light bruising on [A.Y's] lower back area"
that he personally observed at Pali Momi Medical Center; and
"when [he] asked [A.Y.] questions, she was very shy . . . [and]
would always look back at her mother."
As to Count 2, A.Y.--who was five years old at the
time of trial--after being shown a photograph time-stamped 4:46
p.m. on January 21, 2020, depicting her playing with shells in
her grandfather's garden, testified that Yokota hit her with a
belt on that day, as follows:
[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: . . . So when you were serving the
shells, it was morning time?

[A.Y.]: Yeah. And after I played. I played running on the
grass. And –– and –– after that we went in the house and –– and
Daddy starts hitting me because –- (indiscernible). And he
starts hitting me. Then I start getting sad because Daddy was
hitting me.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: Okay. So after you played with the
shells, you were running around the house and then he started
hitting you?

[A.Y.]: Yeah. . . .

A.Y. described the "hitting" by "Daddy," or Yokota, as follows:
[STATE]: Okay. Why was your back hurting that night?

[A.Y.]: Because Daddy whacked it very hard.

. . . .

[STATE]: Okay. Now, you said Daddy whacked you. Did Daddy
use anything to whack you?

[A.Y.]: Like a belt.

. . . .

[STATE]: . . . So you said Daddy hit you with a belt. How
many times did he –- do you remember? Is it a little or a lot?

[A.Y.]: A lot.

[STATE]: Okay. Did it hurt?

[A.Y.]: Yeah.

. . . .

[STATE]: . . . [W]hen you said that your back was hurting
to your Mommy, you said, was that because Daddy was hitting you
with the belt?

[A.Y.]: Uh-huh. . . .

A.Y. testified that she told Yokota that day, "Daddy, you need
to go to a hitting doctor and a wine and alcohol--a hitting
doctor, a wine doctor and--and an alcohol doctor and a smoking
doctor because he likes to do all those stuff [sic] when he hits
me."
As to Count 1, A.Y. was shown a photograph time-
stamped March 7, 2020, 10:49 a.m., depicting her eating at a
restaurant with Yokota and her aunt and uncle; a photograph
time-stamped March 7, 2020, 12:48 p.m., depicting her grocery
shopping with Yokota and June; and a photograph time-stamped

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

March 7, 2020, 4:31 p.m., of her flying a kite with Yokota.
A.Y. testified that Yokota hit her later that day, as follows:
[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: . . . So I showed you a picture of you
drinking hot chocolate, flying a kite, and –- and grocery
shopping. So during that day, did Daddy hit you?

[A.Y.]: At the afternoon I was flying the kite, when Daddy
hit me a lot.

[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: Did Daddy hit you while you were flying
the kite?

[A.Y.]: No. That's after I fly the kite.

[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: Okay. So after you flew the kite,
Daddy decided to hit you?

. . . .

[A.Y.]: Yes.

[YOKOTA'S COUNSEL]: Okay. Do you know why he hit you?

[A.Y.]: I don't know why because he always hits me.

A.Y. testified the two times she went to the hospital were when
her lower back "hurt" because Yokota "whacked it with his hand"
and "hit" her "with the belt." She stated, "Daddy hits me with
a really sore belt that he wears on his waist[,]" and because
"it's a big belt[,]" "it hurts a lot more." A.Y. testified that
both incidents occurred in the afternoon, when Yokota had been
"drinking."
The defense called June and Yokota as witnesses, and
both testified that Yokota had never used a belt to beat A.Y.,
or used any physical force to discipline A.Y. at any time. As
to Count 2, June corroborated A.Y.'s testimony that A.Y. was
playing with shells at her home on January 21, 2020, but
testified that Yokota's demeanor toward A.Y. on that day was
"normal[,]" and that to her knowledge, Yokota did not hit A.Y.
on the remaining days of her visitation (January 22-23, 2020).
As to Count 1, June also corroborated A.Y.'s testimony that on
March 7, 2020, A.Y. had eaten at a restaurant with her family,

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

went grocery shopping, and flew a kite with Yokota, but
testified that Yokota never "[got] upset at any time during this
day[,]" that he never "[took] out his belt and start[ed]
attacking [A.Y.] after she was flying the kite[,]" and that she
never "[heard] any screaming or yelling from [A.Y.] during this
time period[.]"
Yokota testified that he had never physically harmed
A.Y., hit her with a belt, or physically disciplined her in any
way. As to Count 2, he corroborated A.Y's testimony that A.Y.
was playing with shells at his parents' home on January 21,
2020, but testified that later that day he gave A.Y. a bath, ate
dinner with her, and put her to bed. He testified that he never
became upset at A.Y. during her entire January 20-22, 2020
visitation. As to Count 1, Yokota testified that: on March 7,
2020, after flying a kite with A.Y., he ate dinner with her and
their family; at no time during that day did he become upset at
A.Y.; on March 8, 2020, A.Y. ran errands with his parents, took
a nap, and went to a birthday party; and on March 9, 2020, he
dropped A.Y. off at school.
At the conclusion of evidence on July 23, 2020, the
Family Court found Yokota guilty on both counts, finding A.Y.'s
testimony "very, very credible" and Yokota and June's testimony
"not entirely credible," and concluding that the photographs
showing the A.Y.'s bruises were "consistent with being hit by a
belt."
On August 3, 2020, Yokota filed a Motion for New
Trial, arguing that he should have been acquitted based on the
parental discipline defense, and that he should be given a new
trial on the basis of newly-discovered photographic evidence. 6

6 The "newly-discovered" photograph was of A.Y. smiling, taken by
Yokota's father and time-stamped 7:42 p.m. on March 7, 2020, which Yokota

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On August 4, 2020, Yokota timely filed a Notice of
Appeal from the July 23, 2020 Judgment.
After the appeal was filed, the Family Court heard
argument on Yokota's Motion for New Trial on September 10 and
11, 2020, and issued its September 18, 2020 "Order Denying
Motion for New Trial," and December 22, 2020 "Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law" (FOFs/COLs).
1. Yokota's HRS § 805-1 challenge to the Complaint was
not a jurisdictional defect, and Yokota was required
to bring a timely challenge under Hawai‘i Rules of
Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 12.

Yokota argues for dismissal under State v. Thompson
because the Complaint did not comply with HRS § 805-1. Yokota
raised this issue for the first time on appeal.
Whether a complaint complied with an applicable
standard and/or rule is a question of law we review de novo.
Thompson, 150 Hawai‘i at 266, 500 P.3d at 451. Yokota is correct
that HRS § 805-1, which applied here where the Complaint was
used to obtain a penal summons, was violated because the
Complaint lacked a sworn affidavit or declaration. We conclude,
however, that Yokota's HRS § 805-1 challenge fails because it is
untimely.
HRPP Rule 12(b)(2) requires that challenges "based on
defects in the charge" other than a failure "to show
jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense" "must be
raised prior to trial[.]" 7 HRPP Rule 12(f) provides that a

argued contradicted A.Y.'s claim that Yokota had beaten her after taking a
photograph of her on March 7, 2020 at 4:31 p.m.

7 HRPP Rule 12, entitled "Pleadings and Motions Before Trial;
Defenses and Objections" provides in pertinent part:

(b) Pretrial motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is
capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

party's failure to raise defenses or objections "which must be
made prior to trial," "shall constitute waiver thereof[.]"
Because Yokota did not file a motion to dismiss or otherwise
challenge the Complaint prior to trial, HRPP Rule 12(f) waiver
applies.
Yokota, however, argues that his HRS § 805-1 challenge
is a "jurisdictional defect" that may be raised at any time, and
he was not required to raise the issue prior to trial under HRPP
Rule 12(b), as follows:

In the case of an incomplete complaint, the case is never
properly initiated and any judgment which results therefrom
is null and of no effect. [State v.] Knoeppel, 71 Haw.
[168,] 171, 785 P.2d [1321,] 1322 [(1990)]. Therefore, the
failure to meet the requirements of HRS § 805-1 is a
jurisdictional defect as the defective complaint failed to
invoke the jurisdiction of the court and may be raised at
any time. Schwartz [v. State], 136 Hawai‘i [258,] 272, 281
n.42, 361 P.3d [1161,] 1175, 1184 n.42 [(2015)].
The authorities upon which Yokota relies, Knoeppel and Schwartz,
do not support his contentions and are distinguishable.
Knoeppel involved a complaint that was not signed by
the prosecutor, timely challenged as defective under HRPP Rule 7
via a motion to dismiss before the trial court. 71 Haw. at 169,
785 P.2d at 1321. On appeal, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court concluded
that the unsigned complaint was defective, rendering the
conviction "null and of no effect." Id. at 171, 785 P.2d at
1322. Knoeppel did not discuss jurisdiction, or the lack

raised before trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the
discretion of the judge. The following must be raised prior to trial:

(1) defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of
the prosecution;

(2) defenses and objections based on defects in the charge (other
than it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an
offense which objections shall be noticed by the court at any
time during the pendency of the proceedings);
. . . .

(Emphases added.)

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

thereof; did not state that an incomplete complaint is a
jurisdictional defect that may be raised at any time; and did
not involve an untimely challenge as in this case.
Yokota's reliance on footnote 42 of Schwartz to argue
that a complaint's failure to meet HRS § 805-1 requirements is a
jurisdictional defect, is misplaced and unpersuasive. 136
Hawai‘i at 281 n.42, 361 P.3d at 1184 n.42. In Schwartz, the
Hawai‘i Supreme Court noted that a "charging instrument may be so
deficient that a court does not have jurisdiction over the
case[.]" Id. at 272 n.25, 361 P.3d at 1175 n.25 (citation
omitted). Deficiencies that rise to this jurisdiction-depriving
level include: (1) where the charging instrument was never
filed; (2) where the charging instrument charges "an offense
that is not 'cognizable' under state law or an offense that was
committed outside the [trial court's geographic jurisdiction]";
and (3) where the charging instrument charges an offense that is
excluded from the trial court's jurisdiction by statute. Id. at
272 n.25, 281 n.42, 361 P.3d at 1175 n.25, 1184 n.42. None of
these jurisdiction-depriving deficiencies identified in Schwartz
apply here, where the Complaint against Yokota was filed; the
charged offense was committed within the City and County of
Honolulu, the Family Court's geographic jurisdiction; and the
offense was allegedly committed by a parent against a child,
within the Family Court's statutory jurisdiction under HRS §
571-14. Thus, the Complaint's non-compliance with HRS § 805-1
is not a "jurisdictional" defect that can be challenged at any
time. See id.
State v. Dunn, 8 Haw. App. 238, 798 P.2d 908 (1990),
issued shortly after the supreme court's Knoeppel decision,
applies here and is dispositive. As in this case, Dunn involved
an untimely challenge to a similarly defective complaint (i.e.,

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

one that was "not signed by the prosecutor or by the complaining
witness"); but unlike Knoeppel, the complaint was never
challenged in the trial court and was raised only on appeal.
Id. at 240 n.3, 798 P.2d at 910 n.3. This court concluded that:
"[u]nlike the defendant in Knoeppel, Defendant, here, did not
raise the defect below before trial, as he was required to do
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), HRPP" and "[t]herefore, he has waived
the defect." Id. Here, Yokota did not timely raise his HRS
§ 805-1 challenge below, before trial as required by HRPP Rule
12(b), and only raised his challenge on appeal. Accordingly,
the challenge is waived under HRPP Rule 12(f). See id.
2. There was sufficient evidence to support Yokota's
convictions and the Family Court's rejection of the
parental discipline defense.

Yokota argues that the Family Court erred in
concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support
application of the parental discipline defense. Yokota
maintains that "he did not use any physical discipline against
A.Y. at any time[,]" but argues in the alternative that even if
he had "spanked" A.Y. with a belt, that use of force "was
reasonably proportional to the misconduct being punished."
"[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[.]" State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i 149,
157, 166 P.3d 322, 330 (2007) (citation omitted). "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." Id. at 157-58, 166 P.3d at
330-31 (citation omitted).
Here, Yokota did not present evidence below that he
ever physically disciplined A.Y. or of any misconduct by A.Y.

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

warranting parental discipline, for either count. The parental
discipline defense requires any disciplinary force used, to be
"reasonably related" to "the prevention or punishment of the
minor's misconduct" before the defense may apply. HRS § 703-
309(1). The record reflects Yokota testified that at no point
during the relevant times did he physically discipline A.Y., nor
was he ever "upset" at A.Y. or that A.Y. had acted "in a naughty
way[.]" The Family Court found A.Y.'s testimony credible, and
Yokota's not credible. We do not "pass upon issues dependent
upon the credibility of witnesses" on appeal, as "this is the
province of the trier of fact." State v. Sprattling, 99 Hawai‘i
312, 317, 55 P.3d 276, 281 (2002) (cleaned up). Considering the
evidence in the strongest light for the prosecution, there was
sufficient evidence to support the convictions and the Family
Court's rejection of the parental discipline defense. See
Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i at 157, 166 P.3d at 330.
3. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the
motion for new trial.

The August 4, 2020 Notice of Appeal from the July 23,
2020 Judgment did not automatically appeal the subsequent
September 18, 2020 order denying the August 3, 2020 post-
judgment motion for a new trial. HRAP Rule 4(a)(3),
governing civil appeals, provides that: "The notice of appeal
shall be deemed to appeal the disposition of all post-judgment
motions that are timely filed after entry of the judgment or
order." HRAP Rule 4(b) governing criminal appeals, however,
"contains no similar provision." State v. James, 153 Hawai‘i
503, 514, 541 P.3d 1266, 1277 (2024). Yokota did not appeal
from the September 18, 2020 Order Denying Motion for New Trial
or the December 22, 2020 FOF/COLs. Thus, this court lacks

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for new trial.
See HRAP Rule 4(b)(1).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the July 23, 2020
"Judgment and Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" entered
by the Family Court of the First Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 29, 2024.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Alen M. Kaneshiro,
Acting Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Donn Fudo,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

13