State v. Ong

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-JUN-2025
08:30 AM
Dkt. 56 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ARTHUR ONG, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTC-22-026436)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Arthur Ong (Ong) appeals from the

August 25, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment And/Or Order and

Plea/Judgment (Judgment), entered by the District Court of the

First Circuit (District Court)1 in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee

State of Hawai i (State).

Ong raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that the District Court erred in finding and

concluding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Ong of

Collisions Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property, in violation

of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-13 (Supp. 2021).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1
The Honorable Karin L. Holma presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Ong's

point of error as follows:

This case stems from a vehicle collision that occurred

in Honolulu on July 8, 2022, involving Ong and William Nakamura

(Nakamura). During a bench trial, Nakamura testified that the

accident occurred in front of Maryknoll School, just before the

freeway on-ramp going westbound. Nakamura testified that he "got

sideswiped," and that the back corner of Ong's vehicle, which was

a white truck, collided with the front corner of Nakamura's

vehicle, which caused damage which could be seen on Nakamura's

vehicle as a blue and possibly black scratch. Nakamura further

testified that, after the collision, he continued driving behind

Ong, then alongside Ong, honked multiple times at him, that Ong

looked at him, and that even after driving over half a mile, Ong

did not stop or pull over, despite that there were "shoulder

lanes along the freeway [where they] could have possibly pulled

over." Nakamura testified that he had to drive someone to the

airport, drove to the airport, and subsequently reported the

incident to the police.

Ong, the only other witness to testify at trial,

testified that sometime later, while he was in the Philippines,

he received a call from police and was informed that he had been

in an accident. He testified that he was asked whether his truck

was blue, to which he replied "no, it's white," but that the

bolts under his vehicle were blue. Additionally, Ong testified

that he recalled that on the day in question, a vehicle suddenly

stopped on his right side, that he did not remember any honking,

that the driver "stuck his finger at [him]," passed him, and that

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

finally, Ong took the Vineyard off-ramp, went to Lowe's and

checked his vehicle and saw "there was no damage." Ong also

testified that it was not the first time he had been in a car

accident, and that he's "always called the police."

After closing arguments, the District Court found Ong

guilty as charged, stating:
Mr. Ong, the Court does find you guilty.

Court finds that the State presented evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that . . . you did violate 291C-13. Court
finds that on July 8, 2022, as presented by the testimony of
Mr. Nakamura, whom the Court found to be credible, that he
was driving, and that he was sideswiped by you. Mr.
Nakamura credibly testified that you were the person that he
identified as the person who sideswiped him. He testified
that he tried –- essentially, he honked at you. You said he
flipped the finger at you. He may have done that. But in
any event, he tried to get your attention, and you did not
take any action whatsoever. So, the Court does, again, find
him to be credible.

Mr. Ong, you testified that you kept driving, and you
went to the Lowe's parking lot where you checked your truck,
and you determined that there was no damage to the truck, so
you assumed nothing had happened. That leads the Court to
believe that, in fact, you knew something had happened on
July 8th, 2022.

But in any event, the Court is persuaded by the
testimony of Mr. Nakamura.

And the Court does find you guilty.

Ong argues that there was insufficient evidence that

the collision damaged Nakamura's vehicle and/or that Ong could

have stopped at or near the scene of the collision "without

obstructing traffic more than is necessary," in part because

"Nakamura was not asked, nor did he testify that the damage he

saw and photographed was the result of the collision," and

because the statute plainly requires that the collision must

result in damage to either vehicle.

We review the sufficiency of evidence as follows:
[E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in
the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate

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

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.

'Substantial evidence' as to every material element of the
offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient
quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable
caution to support a conclusion.

State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)

(cleaned up).
Verdicts based on conflicting evidence will not be set aside
where there is substantial evidence to support the trier of
fact's findings. We have defined substantial evidence as
credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and
probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to
support a conclusion. It is well-settled that an appellate
court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence;
this is the province of the trier of fact.
State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai i 255, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999)

(cleaned up).

HRS § 291C-13 states:
§ 291C-13 Collisions involving damage to vehicle or
property. The driver of any vehicle involved in a collision
resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property that
is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop
the vehicle at the scene of the collision or as close
thereto as possible, but shall forthwith return to, and in
every event shall remain at, the scene of the collision
until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section
291C-14. Every stop shall be made without obstructing
traffic more than is necessary. For any violation under
this section, a surcharge of up to $100 may be imposed, in
addition to other penalties, which shall be deposited into
the trauma system special fund.

Here, evidence was adduced at trial to support that Ong

was involved in a collision resulting in damage to the driver's

side front fender of Nakamura's vehicle, and that Ong understood

he had been involved in a collision as evidenced by him checking

his truck for damage at the Lowe's parking lot, and although he

could have, Ong did not stop at the scene of the collision or

close thereto. Ong testified largely to the contrary; however,

the District Court found Nakamura's testimony to be credible, and

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

expressed doubt concerning Ong's testimony. This court will not

pass upon the credibility of these testifying witnesses. We

conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the

District Court's conclusion.

For these reasons, the District Court's August 25, 2023

Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 13, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
William H. Jameson, Jr.,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Stephen K. Tsushima, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

5