State v. Lopez Ruiz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-MAY-2026
08:04 AM
Dkt. 63 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
INDIRA D. LOPEZ RUIZ, 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 Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Indira D. Lopez Ruiz (Lopez Ruiz)
appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order
(Judgment) entered on February 22, 2024, in the District Court of
the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1/
Following a bench trial, Lopez Ruiz was convicted of Disorderly
Conduct, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-
1101(1)(b) and (3).2/ The charge stemmed from an incident in

1/
The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided.
2/
HRS § 711-1101 (2014) states, in relevant part:

Disorderly conduct. (1) A person commits the offense
of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause physical
inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public,
or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
. . . .
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;

. . . .
(3) Disorderly conduct is a petty misdemeanor if it
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

which Lopez Ruiz allegedly awakened her neighbor in an adjacent
unit, Rianne Sanchez, and Sanchez's boyfriend at 1:00 a.m. by
yelling, knocking on walls, and, then, by knocking on Sanchez's
front door and shining a flashlight through her window.
On appeal, Lopez Ruiz contends that the Judgment must
be reversed or vacated because: (1) there is not substantial
evidence that Lopez Ruiz caused or risked causing physical
inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public; (2)
the District Court erred by basing its verdict on the contents of
a police body-worn camera video played in court on the State's
laptop computer, after improperly overruling the defense's
foundation objection; (3) even if the trial transcript of the
challenged video is considered, there is not substantial evidence
supporting Lopez Ruiz's disorderly conduct conviction; (4) the
District Court's finding that Lopez Ruiz "merely 'had the intent
to cause inconvenience'" proves that she was not guilty of
disorderly conduct; (5) judicial bias deprived Lopez Ruiz of a
fair trial; and (6) the District Court erred by denying Lopez
Ruiz her right to presentence allocution.
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
Lopez Ruiz's contentions as follows, and reverse.
Lopez Ruiz's first contention is dispositive. She
argues that there is no substantial evidence that she acted with
the "intent to cause physical inconvenience or alarm by a member
or members of the public, or reckless[ly] created a risk thereof"
because "Sanchez and the people in her residence are not members
of the public" for purposes of HRS § 711-1101(1). She further
argues that there is no evidence that anyone else was "actually
inconvenienced or that there was a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that anyone other than the people in Sanchez's residence
might have been inconvenienced."
Lopez Ruiz relies on the Hawai#i Supreme Court's

is the defendant's intention to cause substantial harm or
serious inconvenience, or if the defendant persists in
disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to
desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a violation.

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

decision in State v. Kaeo, 151 Hawai#i 329, 333, 512 P.3d 154,
158 (2021), which reversed a conviction for disorderly conduct.
There, the defendant protestor had "laid in front of trucks
scheduled to transport telescope components for the Daniel K.
Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST)[,]" which inconvenienced "[a]bout
twenty transport convoy workers – all affiliated with, if not
employed by, the DKIST[.]" Id. at 330, 512 P.3d at 155. The
court ruled that the word "public" as used in HRS § 711-1101(1)
means the "community or the people as a whole." Id. at 332, 512
P.3d at 157. The court reasoned:

[The convoy workers] were not part of the "community or the
people as a whole." They were the subset of people tasked
with facilitating the DKIST's construction. They were the
very group [the defendant] targeted with his conduct. This
conceptual nexus between [the defendant's] conduct and the
convoy workers' presence at the Baseyard because of their
DKIST ties precludes us from treating the convoy workers as
"members of the public."

Id. at 334, 512 P.3d at 159 (emphases added). The court held
that because the convoy workers were not members of the public
and the State presented no evidence that the defendant
inconvenienced anyone other than the convoy workers, the trial
court lacked sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of
disorderly conduct. Id. at 335, 512 P.3d at 160.
The court's reasoning in Kaeo applies with equal force
here. During the bench trial, Sanchez testified that on the
night of the incident, she and her boyfriend were awakened by
"yelling" and "knocking on the walls" "around 1 a.m." Sanchez
heard Lopez Ruiz saying, "cut it out, cut it out, my – my
electricity's not working[,]" and accusing Sanchez and her
boyfriend of "playing with her electricity[.]" Sanchez then
"heard [Lopez Ruiz] exit her unit, come to our front door, knock
on our front door, shine . . . her flashlight through the
window[,]" which is when Sanchez called the police. Sanchez's
testimony, which the District Court found credible, showed that
Lopez Ruiz had directed her conduct (i.e., her "unreasonable
noise") at Sanchez and her boyfriend, whom Lopez Ruiz believed
were "playing with her electricity[.]" In these circumstances,
Sanchez and her boyfriend were not part of the "community or the
people as a whole" and thus not "members of the public" for

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

purposes of HRS § 711-1101(1). Kaeo, 151 Hawai#i at 334, 512
P.3d at 159; see id. at 334 n.11, 512 P.3d at 159 n.11 (noting
that in State v. Leung, 79 Hawai#i 538, 904 P.2d 552 (App. 1995),
the court "did not consider the theater manager – a target of
Leung's ire - a 'member of the public' within the context of the
disorderly conduct statute") (emphasis added). Because there was
no evidence presented of actual inconvenience (or a substantial
and unjustifiable risk of it) to anyone other than Sanchez and
her boyfriend, Lopez Ruiz's disorderly conduct conviction under
HRS § 711-1101(1)(b) and (3) is not supported by substantial
evidence.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Lopez
Ruiz's remaining contentions.
For the reasons discussed above, the Notice of Entry of
Judgment and/or Order entered on February 22, 2024, in the
District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is
reversed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 7, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Henry P. Ting, Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Brian R. Vincent, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

4

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-MAY-2026
08:04 AM
Dkt. 63 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
INDIRA D. LOPEZ RUIZ, 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 Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Indira D. Lopez Ruiz (Lopez Ruiz)
appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order
(Judgment) entered on February 22, 2024, in the District Court of
the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1/
Following a bench trial, Lopez Ruiz was convicted of Disorderly
Conduct, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-
1101(1)(b) and (3).2/ The charge stemmed from an incident in

1/
The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided.
2/
HRS § 711-1101 (2014) states, in relevant part:

Disorderly conduct. (1) A person commits the offense
of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause physical
inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public,
or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:

. . . .

(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
. . . .

(3) Disorderly conduct is a petty misdemeanor if it
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

which Lopez Ruiz allegedly awakened her neighbor in an adjacent
unit, Rianne Sanchez, and Sanchez's boyfriend at 1:00 a.m. by
yelling, knocking on walls, and, then, by knocking on Sanchez's
front door and shining a flashlight through her window.
On appeal, Lopez Ruiz contends that the Judgment must
be reversed or vacated because: (1) there is not substantial
evidence that Lopez Ruiz caused or risked causing physical
inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public; (2)
the District Court erred by basing its verdict on the contents of
a police body-worn camera video played in court on the State's
laptop computer, after improperly overruling the defense's
foundation objection; (3) even if the trial transcript of the
challenged video is considered, there is not substantial evidence
supporting Lopez Ruiz's disorderly conduct conviction; (4) the
District Court's finding that Lopez Ruiz "merely 'had the intent
to cause inconvenience'" proves that she was not guilty of
disorderly conduct; (5) judicial bias deprived Lopez Ruiz of a
fair trial; and (6) the District Court erred by denying Lopez
Ruiz her right to presentence allocution.
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
Lopez Ruiz's contentions as follows, and reverse.
Lopez Ruiz's first contention is dispositive. She
argues that there is no substantial evidence that she acted with
the "intent to cause physical inconvenience or alarm by a member
or members of the public, or reckless[ly] created a risk thereof"
because "Sanchez and the people in her residence are not members
of the public" for purposes of HRS § 711-1101(1). She further
argues that there is no evidence that anyone else was "actually
inconvenienced or that there was a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that anyone other than the people in Sanchez's residence
might have been inconvenienced."
Lopez Ruiz relies on the Hawai#i Supreme Court's

is the defendant's intention to cause substantial harm or
serious inconvenience, or if the defendant persists in
disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to
desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a violation.

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

decision in State v. Kaeo, 151 Hawai#i 329, 333, 512 P.3d 154,
158 (2021), which reversed a conviction for disorderly conduct.
There, the defendant protestor had "laid in front of trucks
scheduled to transport telescope components for the Daniel K.
Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST)[,]" which inconvenienced "[a]bout
twenty transport convoy workers – all affiliated with, if not
employed by, the DKIST[.]" Id. at 330, 512 P.3d at 155. The
court ruled that the word "public" as used in HRS § 711-1101(1)
means the "community or the people as a whole." Id. at 332, 512
P.3d at 157. The court reasoned:

[The convoy workers] were not part of the "community or the
people as a whole." They were the subset of people tasked
with facilitating the DKIST's construction. They were the
very group [the defendant] targeted with his conduct. This
conceptual nexus between [the defendant's] conduct and the
convoy workers' presence at the Baseyard because of their
DKIST ties precludes us from treating the convoy workers as
"members of the public."

Id. at 334, 512 P.3d at 159 (emphases added). The court held
that because the convoy workers were not members of the public
and the State presented no evidence that the defendant
inconvenienced anyone other than the convoy workers, the trial
court lacked sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of
disorderly conduct. Id. at 335, 512 P.3d at 160.
The court's reasoning in Kaeo applies with equal force
here. During the bench trial, Sanchez testified that on the
night of the incident, she and her boyfriend were awakened by
"yelling" and "knocking on the walls" "around 1 a.m." Sanchez
heard Lopez Ruiz saying, "cut it out, cut it out, my – my
electricity's not working[,]" and accusing Sanchez and her
boyfriend of "playing with her electricity[.]" Sanchez then
"heard [Lopez Ruiz] exit her unit, come to our front door, knock
on our front door, shine . . . her flashlight through the
window[,]" which is when Sanchez called the police. Sanchez's
testimony, which the District Court found credible, showed that
Lopez Ruiz had directed her conduct (i.e., her "unreasonable
noise") at Sanchez and her boyfriend, whom Lopez Ruiz believed
were "playing with her electricity[.]" In these circumstances,
Sanchez and her boyfriend were not part of the "community or the
people as a whole" and thus not "members of the public" for

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

purposes of HRS § 711-1101(1). Kaeo, 151 Hawai#i at 334, 512
P.3d at 159; see id. at 334 n.11, 512 P.3d at 159 n.11 (noting
that in State v. Leung, 79 Hawai#i 538, 904 P.2d 552 (App. 1995),
the court "did not consider the theater manager – a target of
Leung's ire - a 'member of the public' within the context of the
disorderly conduct statute") (emphasis added). Because there was
no evidence presented of actual inconvenience (or a substantial
and unjustifiable risk of it) to anyone other than Sanchez and
her boyfriend, Lopez Ruiz's disorderly conduct conviction under
HRS § 711-1101(1)(b) and (3) is not supported by substantial
evidence.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Lopez
Ruiz's remaining contentions.
For the reasons discussed above, the Notice of Entry of
Judgment and/or Order entered on February 22, 2024, in the
District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is
reversed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 7, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Henry P. Ting, Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Brian R. Vincent, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

4