State v. Wahlquist

LAW L!BF{AF{Y

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

No. 29266 §
§
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS §§
OF THE STATE OF HAWAfI U` fm
§
¢ . . *4 §§
STATE OF HAWAl I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ag é;
CHARLES J. WAHLQUIST, Defendant-Appellant f us
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
EWA DIVISION
(HPD TraffiC NO. lDTC-08-OO0O24)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Ginoza, JJ.)
(Wahlquist)

Defendant-Appellant Charles J. Wahlquist
2008 in the

appeals from the judgment entered on June 24,
District Court of the First Circuit, Ewa Division (District

Court).1 _Wahlquist was convicted of Excessive Speeding in
violation of HRS §29lC-lO5(a)(1) and HRS §291C-lO5(a)(2).

On appeal, Wahlquist contends, inter alia, that the
District Court erred in overruling his objection that there was

insufficient foundation to admit testimony regarding the laser
Wahlquist argues that "there was insufficient

speed gun reading.
foundation to establish that this particular electronic measuring
(2) properly calibrated; and

properly maintained;

device was: (l)
(3) producing reliable speed readings."
Upon a careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted, and upon due consideration of the arguments made and
issues raised by the parties, we hold that the State failed to
adduce evidence that the laser gun was tested according to the
manufacturer's recommended procedures in order to establish
State v.

sufficient foundation to admit the laser gun reading.
l2l HaWaiH_204, 210-l4, 216 P.3d l227, l233-37 (2009).

Assaye,

1 The Honorable Peter Stone presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Other than the laser gun reading, no other evidence was presented
by the State to establish a speed to convict Wahlquist of
Excessive Speeding. The State thus failed to meet its burden of
proof to convict Wahlquist of Excessive Speeding.

Given the above, we need not address the other points
of error raised by Wahlquist on appeal.

For the reasons set forth above, the District Court's
judgment entered on June 24, 2008 is reversed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawafi, May 26, 20lO.

On the briefs: ._

Timothy I. MacMaster Presiding g

for Defendant-Appellant :?
amax/nam

Delanie D. Prescott-Tate

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu _'
for Plaintiff-Appellee §§ F Lb(

Associate Judge