State v. Ballesteros, 149 Haw. 303

Defendant Ruel S. Ballesteros was convicted after a bench trial of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant as a Third Offense Within Five Years (OVUII 3) in the District Court, Honolulu.
Ballesteros appealed solely arguing the District Court improperly relied on State Exhibits 4–8 (evidence of prior OVUII convictions) to prove he drove while impaired, claiming such use was impermissible propensity evidence under HRE Rule 404(b).
He conceded those exhibits were relevant to confirm prior convictions for sentencing but argued they could not be used to prove the current impairment element.
The ICA reviewed Ruggiero (attendant‑circumstances/element vs sentencing factor) and precedent on a judge’s presumption to disregard improperly admitted evidence.
The court found the prior‑offense evidence admissible for the limited purpose of establishing the attendant‑circumstance element of OVUII 3, and presumed the trial judge considered it only for that purpose (no record rebutting the presumption).
The court also held that, even if the prior‑offense evidence had been improperly considered, substantial evidence apart from those exhibits (wrong‑way driving, strong odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, nervousness/blank stare, refusal to submit to field sobriety tests, statements of remorse) supports the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/use of prior OVUII convictions to prove OVUII 3	Prior convictions constitute attendant circumstances intrinsic to the offense and are admissible to prove the third‑offense element (Ruggiero)	Exhibits 4–8 were only relevant for sentencing/prior‑conviction confirmation and served only to show propensity to drive impaired (inadmissible under HRE 404(b))	Court: Ruggiero permits considering prior OVUII convictions for the attendant‑circumstance (third‑offense) element; evidence admissible for that limited purpose and District Court did not err in so doing
Sufficiency of evidence absent prior‑conviction exhibits	Evidence of wrong‑way driving, odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, nervousness, refusal to perform FSTs and admissions support guilt beyond substantial‑evidence test	Without the prior‑conviction exhibits there is no substantial evidence to prove he drove while impaired	Court: Even if prior convictions were improperly considered, the remaining evidence is substantial and supports the OVUII 3 conviction; conviction affirmed

State v. Ruggiero, [citation="114 Hawai'i 227, 160 P.3d 703"] (Haw. 2007) (aggravating/prior‑offense factors treated as attendant circumstances intrinsic to the offense; must be alleged/proved)
State v. Kiese, [citation="126 Hawai'i 494, 273 P.3d 1180"] (Haw. 2012) (presumption that a bench judge disregards incompetent evidence and limits use to permissible purposes)
State v. Lioen, [citation="106 Hawai'i 123, 102 P.3d 367"] (App. 2004) (when evidence is admissible for a limited purpose, presume judge considered it only for that purpose)
State v. Matavale, [citation="115 Hawai'i 149, 166 P.3d 322"] (Haw. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence; substantial evidence test)
State v. Ferm, [citation="94 Hawai'i 17, 7 P.3d 193"] (App. 2000) (a defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety testing may be used as evidence indicative of guilt)