State v. Neves
CAAP-20-0000045
| Haw. App. | May 9, 2022Background
- Defendant Ethan G.K. Neves was convicted in District Court of driving with a revoked/suspended license under HRS § 291E-62 based on a prior OVUII-related revocation.
- Two incidents: Officer completed a Notice of Administrative Revocation (NOAR) on Oct. 11, 2018 (OVUII arrest); Neves was cited for driving on Nov. 21, 2018.
- Trial evidence included officer testimony identifying Neves, the NOAR (Exhibit 7), a certified ADLRO decision (Exhibit 2) showing revocation from Nov. 11, 2018–Nov. 10, 2019, a certified traffic abstract, and an ID photo.
- At bench trial, the court conducted a Tachibana colloquy after the defense rested; Neves waived his right to testify.
- Neves appealed raising four errors: (1) inadequate Tachibana colloquy; (2) the colloquy error was not harmless; (3) improper admission of the NOAR; and (4) insufficient evidence.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Neves' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Tachibana colloquy | Colloquy informed Neves of right to testify, cross-examination, and right to remain silent; waiver was voluntary and intelligent | Colloquy was deficient (timing after resting; missing background questions; wording) | Affirmed. Timing alone is not reversible; substance satisfied Tachibana; court engaged in true colloquy and Neves knowingly waived right to testify |
| Harmlessness of any Tachibana error | Any alleged defect was harmless under totality of circumstances | Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed. Record supports voluntary, intelligent waiver; no prejudice shown |
| Admissibility of NOAR | NOAR was authenticated by officer who completed, read to, and had Neves sign it; NOAR is ADLRO form and admissible for identification/informational purposes | NOAR was uncertified and part of police report; hearsay not covered by public-records exception (relied on Abrigo) | Affirmed. Officer authenticated the NOAR; it did not require ADLRO certification; not treated as part of police report; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Multiple exhibits and officer testimony identified Neves and showed revocation period; matches across documents established identity/prior OVUII conviction | Evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supported conviction (officer IDs, NOAR, certified ADLRO decision, traffic abstract, ID photograph) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tachibana v. State, 79 Haw. 226, 900 P.2d 1293 (1995) (requires advising defendant of right to testify/not testify and a colloquy to ascertain understanding)
- State v. Celestine, 142 Haw. 165, 415 P.3d 907 (2018) (totality-of-circumstances review of waiver; no requirement to ask background questions during colloquy)
- State v. Abrigo, 144 Haw. 491, 445 P.3d 72 (2019) (addressed admissibility issues relied on by defendant but found inapposite here)
- State v. Loa, 83 Haw. 335, 926 P.2d 1258 (1996) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 831 P.2d 924 (1992) (appellate sufficiency review uses substantial-evidence standard)
- State v. Kam, 134 Haw. 280, 339 P.3d 1081 (2014) (matches among documents showing name, DOB, last four SSN digits can establish identity/prior conviction)