State v. Fegan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-JUN-2025
09:12 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.
MICHAEL FEGAN, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTA-22-02181)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Michael P. Fegan (Fegan) appeals

from the August 9, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order

and Plea/Judgment (Judgment) entered by the Honolulu Division of

the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court).1 After

a bench trial, Fegan was convicted of Collisions Involving Damage

to Vehicle or Property in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 291C-13 (Supp. 2024) (Collisions Involving Damage), and

ordered to pay fines and fees totaling $237.

Fegan raises a single point of error, contending that

the District Court erred in finding that the evidence it found to

be credible proved Fegan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of

1
The Honorable Harlan Y. Kimura presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

violating the material elements of the requirement to provide

information after an accident under HRS § 291C-13.

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 Fegan's

point of error as follows:

Fegan argues that there is not substantial evidence in

the record that he failed to remain at the scene until he

provided the information required by HRS § 291C-14 (Supp. 2024).

Fegan further argues that there is no evidence that Fegan failed

to satisfy HRS § 291C-14(b).

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.

(Emphasis added.)

HRS § 291C-14 states in relevant part:
§ 291C-14 Duty to give information and render aid.
(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in a collision
resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to
any vehicle or other property that is driven or attended by
any person shall give the driver's name, address, and the
registration number of the vehicle the driver is driving,
and shall upon request and if available exhibit the driver's
license or permit to drive to any person injured in the
collision or to the driver or occupant of or person
attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the
collision and shall give the information and upon request
exhibit the license or permit to any police officer at the
scene of the collision or who is investigating the collision
and shall render to any person injured in the collision
reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making
of arrangements for the carrying, of the person to a
physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical
treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or
if the carrying is requested by the injured person; provided
that if the vehicle involved in the collision is a bicycle,

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

the driver of the bicycle need not exhibit a license or
permit to drive.

(b) In the event that none of the persons specified is
in condition to receive the information to which they
otherwise would be entitled under subsection (a), and no
police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle
involved in the collision after fulfilling all other
requirements of section 291C-12, 291C-12.5, or 291C-12.6,
and subsection (a), insofar as possible on the driver's part
to be performed, shall forthwith report the collision to the
nearest police officer and submit thereto the information
specified in subsection (a).

(Emphasis added.)

Thus, the elements of a violation of Collisions

Involving Damage are:
(1) the defendant was driving a vehicle that was
involved in an accident resulting only in damage to a
vehicle or other property;

(2) the vehicle or property was driven or attended by
another person;

(3) the defendant did not

(a) immediately stop at the scene of the
accident, or at a location as close thereto as possible and
forthwith return to the scene that would not have obstructed
traffic more than is necessary;

or

(b) provide the information required by section
291C-14 to the other driver and any police officer at the
scene, or, in their absence, forthwith report the accident
to the nearest police officer and provide that information
to the officer.

State v. Baker, 146 Hawai i 299, 307–08, 463 P.3d 956, 964–65

(2020).

Here, the complaining witness (CW) testified that while

driving with his two children, Fegan's vehicle collided with and

caused damage to CW's vehicle. CW testified that after the

collision, Fegan exited his vehicle, approached CW's vehicle and

"banged on my window," "telling me to come out, be a man, to not

fucking call the cops, be a man about this, handle this on our

own."

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

CW testified that Fegan did not provide his name,

address, and registration during this exchange. CW denied that

Fegan had "his paperwork in his hand" when he approached CW's

vehicle, and testified "I was very clear in what I saw. There

was no paper in his hands."

CW stated after witnessing Fegan's actions, "there's no

way I'm getting out of my car" and "I was still on the phone with

911" and "[t]hey told me, definitely don't get out of your car,

the police are on their way." CW testified that when Fegan "saw

that I wasn't coming out of my car, he pulled down his truck bed,

sat on the bed, and just stared me down aggressively, still

cussing me out, while my two kids were in my backseat."

Fegan testified that he tried to provide his name,

address, and registration, but CW did not receive any information

because CW "never exited his vehicle to exchange said paperwork."

The District Court stated: "[i]t gets down to the

issue of credibility," and found that although Fegan testified he

"attempted" to provide his information "but it was not received,"

CW testified that "no information required by 291C-13 was

provided by Mr. Fegan" and that "the information required by

291C-14, . . . insurance, name, and so forth, was not provided."

The District Court found that CW "is credible and not

the defendant," and found "beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon

credibility, that [Fegan] violated 291C-13" and did not "provide

the information required by 291C after the accident."

Construing the evidence in the strongest light for the

prosecution, there is substantial evidence to find that Fegan did

not provide his identifying information to CW, as required by HRS

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

§ 291C-13, and the District Court resolved any conflicting

testimony and issues of witness credibility against Fegan. See

State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai i 149, 157–58, 166 P.3d 322, 330–31

(2007) (setting forth standard for review of challenge to

sufficiency of the evidence).

While Fegan contends that, under HRS § 291C-14(b), he

did not have to provide the required information (i.e., name,

address, vehicle registration, and driver's license) because CW

was not "in condition to receive the information," the District

Court found Fegan's testimony that he attempted to provide the

information – "but it was not received" – was not credible. See

State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai i 85, 90, 976 P.2d 399, 404 (1999)

("appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the

credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence")

(cleaned up).

For these reasons, the District Court's August 9, 2023

Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 17, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
David A. Fanelli,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Loren J. Thomas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

5