State v. Yabusaki
570 P.2d 844 · Hawaii Supreme Court · 1977
Facts
Mrs. Joanne Badeaux heard noises from her neighbor Frank Steinmiller's home and saw a light blue Corvair with appellant Yabusaki in the passenger seat in the driveway. A male exited the home carrying stereo equipment, placed it in the car, and conversed with Yabusaki. Another male, Eugene Napolis, then ran out with television equipment, and a third male crouched and jumped into the back seat. Mrs. Badeaux noted the license plate number as Mr. Steinmiller arrived home and attempted to block the driveway. The car then drove over a planting area, across the lawn, hit a shower tree, jumped a curb, and sped off. Police were notified, and the car was stopped about 15 minutes later. One occupant fled, and Yabusaki was arrested holding a stereo console. Entry into the home was gained by removing louvers from a bedroom window.
Procedural history
Appellant Yabusaki was found guilty by a jury of burglary in the first degree and sentenced to five years probation, including six months at Halawa Jail and a $500 fine. He moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case and again at the end of his case, both of which were denied by the trial court. Yabusaki appealed from the judgment and sentence of the trial court to this court.
Issue
The sole question on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. Specifically, the issue is whether the State failed to prove Yabusaki was an accomplice with the requisite state of mind for burglary in the first degree.
Holding
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motions for judgment of acquittal. The judgment and sentence of the trial court were affirmed.
Rule
Under HRS § 702-221 and § 702-222, a person is criminally responsible as an accomplice if, with the intention of promoting or facilitating the offense, they aid or attempt to aid in its commission. While mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish intent, intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the acts, conduct, and surrounding circumstances. To deny a motion to acquit, there must be sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case, enabling a reasonable mind to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, giving full play to the fact-finder's role in determining credibility and weighing evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.