CourtListener 10678514

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-SEP-2025
07:58 AM
Dkt. 34 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PUALANI K. DOMINGO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Defendant-Appellant Pualani K. Domingo (Domingo)
appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order
(Judgment) entered on August 1, 2023, in the District Court of
the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1/
Following a bench trial, Domingo was convicted of Criminal
Property Damage in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-823(1).2/ The charge stemmed from an
incident in which Pualani allegedly shook a bus stop sign,
causing it to detach from its base and fall to the ground.
On appeal, Domingo contends that: (1) the District
Court erred by admitting into evidence hearsay regarding the
alleged damage to property; and (2) insufficient evidence was

1/
The Honorable Denise K.H. Kawatachi presided.
2/
HRS § 708-823 (2014) provides, in relevant part:
(1) A person commits the offense of criminal property damage
in the fourth degree if by means other than fire, the person
intentionally or knowingly damages the property of another
without the other's consent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

adduced at trial to prove that property was damaged.
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
Domingo's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Domingo contends that the District Court improperly
admitted the following testimony by prosecution witness Brian
Nakagawa (Nakagawa) over Domingo's hearsay objection:

Q. [BY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (DPA)] Okay.
And how did you get the estimate for the cost of repair?
A. [BY NAKAGAWA] From our garage and –-
Q. All right.

A. -- our work crew.
Q. Okay. Is that the standard procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was --
A. Every incident got to be called in.

Q. Okay. What was the amount -- the estimated amount
of cost of repair?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We object, Judge. Hearsay.
[NAKAGAWA]: $500.

THE COURT: Oh. Overruled. Okay. I'm going to allow
-- I'm going to overrule. He can testify with regard to his
personal knowledge.
Q. (BY [DPA]) Okay. What was the cost of repair?
A. [BY NAKAGAWA] $500.

(Emphasis added.)
Hawai#i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 801 (2016) defines
hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay is generally
not admissible. HRE Rule 802 (2016).
Here, Nakagawa's testimony regarding the estimated cost
to repair the sign appears to be based on an out-of-court
statement made by "our garage . . . and work crew." The State
contends, however, that Nakagawa's testimony was not offered to
prove the truth of the matter asserted, but was a statement of

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

"independent legal significance." Specifically, the State claims
the testimony was not offered to prove the estimate amount, but
"to show that the 'garage and . . . work crew' had given Nakagawa
an estimate for the cost of repair."
The State's argument is unpersuasive. To establish
that Domingo committed Criminal Property Damage in the Fourth
Degree, the State was required to prove that Domingo, by shaking
the sign, intentionally or knowingly damaged the property of the
City and County of Honolulu without its consent. See HRS § 708-
823(1). In this context, the State does not explain why
Nakagawa's receipt of a repair cost estimate has independent
legal significance. Morever, in its closing argument, the State
argued that Domingo damaged the sign, "[a]nd there was a monetary
value on the amount of damage." In other words, the repair cost
estimate was offered to prove its truth. It was inadmissible
hearsay.
The State argues that even if it was error to admit
this evidence, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See State v. Jones, 148 Hawai#i 152, 170, 468 P.3d 166, 184
(2020) ("Erroneously admitted evidence is evaluated under the
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard." (quoting State v.
Matsumoto, 145 Hawai#i 313, 327, 452 P.3d 310, 324 (2019))
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Having reviewed the error in light of the entire
record, we reach the same conclusion. To establish the offense,
the State was required to prove, among other things, that Domingo
damaged the sign. See supra. It was not required to prove the
dollar value of the damage. See State v. Yamura, No. CAAP-13-
0001578, 2014 WL 2440144, at *1 (Haw. App. May 29, 2014) (SDO)
("[N]either permanent damage nor the value of the property damage
are elements that must be proven in order to convict under HRS
§ 708–823."). At trial, Elmer Ranit, who witnessed the incident,
testified that he saw Domingo shake the sign pole "[a]bout three
times" for "[a]bout two, three minutes[,]" while she "ke[pt] on
screaming." When Domingo shook the sign the third time, it fell.
Ranit identified State's Exhibit 2 as a photograph depicting the
detached base of the pole that was on the ground after the sign

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

fell. In addition, Nakagawa testified that he saw the damaged
sign when he arrived at the scene. He identified State's Exhibit
2 as depicting "the base and the bus stop stand detached." Thus,
the alleged property damage was established through proof
independent of the repair cost estimate, and there is no
indication that the District Court relied on the estimate in
convicting Domingo.3/ See State v. Kiese, 126 Hawai#i 494, 507,
273 P.3d 1180, 1193 (2012) ("[W]here a case is tried without a
jury, it is presumed that the presiding judge will have
disregarded the incompetent evidence and relied upon that which
was competent." (quoting State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 355, 615
P.2d 101, 108 (1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Considering the entire record, we conclude there is no
reasonable possibility that the admission of the repair cost
estimate contributed to Domingo's conviction. Accordingly, the
Circuit Court's error in admitting the testimony regarding the
estimate was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Domingo contends that "[w]ithout Nakagawa's hearsay
testimony, there was no proof of the value of damage, nor was
there any proof that the property was in fact damaged."
We review the sufficiency of the evidence based on
admissible evidence; in other words, we must review the remaining
evidence without considering Nakagawa's hearsay testimony. See
State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai#i 382, 413-15, 910 P.2d 695, 726-28
(1996) (holding that review for evidentiary sufficiency is based
on "substantial and admissible evidence"). The remaining
evidence must be considered in the "strongest light for the
prosecution," and the "test on appeal is not whether guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was

3/
In rendering its decision, the District Court stated:

So based on the evidence that was admitted and the testimony
of the witnesses, which included the testimony of Mr. Ranit
and Mr. Nakagawa, the Court did find especially persuasive
Mr. Ranit's testimony as well as Mr. Nakagawa's testimony.
Mr. Ranit did testify that he observed Ms. Domingo
shaking the pole about three times. Each time she was
shaking the pole approximately two to three minutes. Mr.
Nakagawa testified that the next day the crew went out to
repair the sign, and he did go to the scene of the offense.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of
fact." State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322,
330-31 (2007).
As discussed above, the State was required to prove
that Domingo damaged the sign, not the value of the damage. As
further discussed above, independent proof at trial established
the fact that Domingo damaged the sign. In particular, Ranit
testified that he saw the sign fall to the ground after Domingo
repeatedly shook the sign pole. Ranit and Nakagawa also
identified photographs depicting the damaged sign, which were
received into evidence without objection. Viewing the admissible
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we
conclude there was substantial evidence to support the District
Court's determination that Domingo damaged the sign.
For these reasons, we affirm the Notice of Entry of
Judgment and/or Order entered on August 1, 2023, in the District
Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 26, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Walter J. Rodby Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-SEP-2025
07:58 AM
Dkt. 34 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PUALANI K. DOMINGO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Q. [BY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (DPA)] Okay.
And how did you get the estimate for the cost of repair?
A. [BY NAKAGAWA] From our garage and –-
Q. All right.
A. -- our work crew.

Q. Okay. Is that the standard procedure?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And was --

A. Every incident got to be called in.
Q. Okay. What was the amount -- the estimated amount
of cost of repair?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We object, Judge. Hearsay.

[NAKAGAWA]: $500.

THE COURT: Oh. Overruled. Okay. I'm going to allow
-- I'm going to overrule. He can testify with regard to his
personal knowledge.

Q. (BY [DPA]) Okay. What was the cost of repair?

A. [BY NAKAGAWA] $500.