CourtListener 10870381

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
04-JUN-2026
08:04 AM
Dkt. 65 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CHAY SABELLONA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
WAI#ANAE DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTC-24-012768)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

After a bench trial, Chay Sabellona was convicted of
Excessive Speeding in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 291C-105(a). He appeals from the April 25, 2024 Judgment
entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, Wai#anae
Division.1 He contends (1) the district court erred by admitting
Honolulu Police Department officer Janghoon Cho's testimony about
his speed because the State failed to lay adequate foundation;
and (2) without evidence of his speed, there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction. We conclude the district
court erred by overruling Sabellona's objection to Officer Cho's
testimony and, without that evidence, the State failed to prove
all elements of Excessive Speeding. We reverse the Judgment.
(1) We review a trial court's determination whether
proper evidentiary foundation has been established for abuse of

1
The Honorable Bryant Zane presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discretion. State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai#i 204, 210, 216 P.3d
1227, 1233 (2009).
Officer Cho used a Stalker LIDAR RLR laser to measure
Sabellona's speed. To establish foundation for admission of a
laser speed reading, the State must prove that the "nature and
extent of an officer's training in the operation of the laser gun
meets the requirements indicated by the manufacturer." State v.
Amiral, 132 Hawai#i 170, 178, 319 P.3d 1178, 1186 (2014) (quoting
Assaye, 121 Hawai#i at 215, 216 P.3d at 1238). The State must
prove "(1) the requirements indicated by the manufacturer, and
(2) the training actually received by the operator of the laser
gun." Id.
Officer Cho identified Applied Concepts as the
manufacturer of his LIDAR. He was trained to use the LIDAR by
Sergeant Jeremy Franks, who was certified by Applied Concepts.
He was given the LIDAR manual. He completed the classroom,
practice, and exam portions of the training. He passed the test.
He testified about the four steps he used to test the LIDAR.
But here, as in Amiral, the State did not establish
what Applied Concepts' training requirements were; what the
manual's contents were; whether the manual contained Applied
Concepts' training requirements; or what training (other than how
to test the LIDAR) Officer Cho actually received. "Accordingly,
the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the
introduction of the laser gun reading, and thus the trial court
erred in admitting the speed reading into evidence." 132 Hawai#i
at 178–79, 319 P.3d at 1186–87.
(2) HRS § 701-114(1)(a) (2014) requires that each
element of an offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a
prosecution for Excessive Speeding the State must prove that the
defendant drove a motor vehicle "at a speed exceeding: (1) The
applicable state or county speed limit by thirty miles per hour
or more; or (2) Eighty miles per hour or more irrespective of the
applicable state or county speed limit." HRS § 291C-105(a)
(2020). The only evidence of Sabellona's speed was Officer Cho's

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

testimony about the LIDAR reading, which should have been
excluded. The evidence was insufficient to convict Sabellona of
Excessive Speeding.
The district court's April 25, 2024 Judgment is
reversed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 4, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Jon N. Ikenaga, Presiding Judge
Public Defender,
Seth Patek, Deputy /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Public Defender, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Steven S. Alm, Associate Judge
Prosecuting Attorney,
Robert T. Nakatsuji,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Hawai#i.