No. 25934
Within the intermediate court of appeals
Of the state of hawai'i
STATE-OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee
V.
XANYA SOFRA-WEISS, Offender-Appellant
Appeal from your first circuit court
(HPD Felony No. 02310026)
Summary disposition buy
(By: Watanabe, Performing C.J., Lim, and Nakamura, JJ.)
Offender-Appellant Xanya Sofra-Weiss, Ph. D. (Doctor. Weiss) appeals in the View submitted on October 9, within the District Court of the Very First Signal (district judge). Dr. Weiss was charged with nuisance in breach of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106 (1) (b) and/or (1) (f) (2003 Supp.) and legal property injury within the fourth-degree in breach of HOURS § 708-823 (1) (1993). Following a seat test, center judge Judge Clarence Pacarro discovered Dr. Weiss responsible of nuisance and acquitted her of the legal property damage cost. Decide Pacarro sentenced Dr. Weiss to cost of the $150 good and $25 towards the Legal Injury Compensation Fund. No phrase of incarceration or probation was enforced.
Dr. Weiss's single state on charm is the fact that there is inadequate proof to aid her harassment confidence since the prosecution witnesses dedicated "wholesale perjury" as well as their account was "naturally amazing." In researching deficit of proof statements, we ought to decide whether, watching evidence within the light most positive towards the justice, there's considerable proof to aid the confidence. State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636,637, 633 p. 2d 1115,1117 (1981). Following A thorough overview of the report and also the briefs posted from the events, we determine the proof in this instance was adequate to aid Dr. Weiss's confidence.
To be certain, inconsistent data was offered from the justice and also the protection. Nevertheless, a confidence might be centered on inconsistent data so long as there's considerable proof of the offender's shame. State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai`i 85,90, 976 P. 2d 399,404 (1999). Additionally, the person of reality might want to take or refuse any experienceis account entirely or simply. State v. Canon, 56 Haw. 161,166, 532 p. 2d 391,396 (1975).
The account of the prosecution witnesses offered considerable proof that Dr. Weiss was responsible of the billed nuisance. Dr. Weiss intensely attacked the reliability of particular prosecution witnesses at trial. The trial judge, nevertheless, discovered Dr. Weiss responsible of nuisance on the basis of the judgeis evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses and also the fat of evidence. It's the land of the trier of reality, not the appellate courts, to look for the reliability of the witnesses and also the fat of evidence. State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai`i 17,23, 25 P. 3d 792,798 ; State v. Buch, 83 Hawai`i 308,321, 926 P. 2d 599,612 (1996). We're not at freedom to overturn the trial judgeis determinations on these issues. Identity.
Thus,
IT'S HEREBY ORDERED the View submitted on October 9, within the District Court of the Very First Signal is confirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 15.
About The briefs:
Mangmang Qiu Brown,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Town and Region of Honolulu
For plaintiff-appellee.
Earle A. Partington, Esq.
For defendant-appellant.
0 comments