NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE
OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
OK YON VELA, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
HONOLULU DIVISION
(HPD NO. 02047361)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Burns, C.J., Watanabe and Foley, JJ.)
On appeal, Vela contends (1) the district court erred by failing to allow Vela to cross-examine the investigating officer about a massage license violation, (2) the district court abused its discretion by limiting Vela's cross-examination of the investigating officer about his confusing Vela's case with other cases, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to convict her.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Vela's points of error as follows:(1) Vela contends the district court erred by precluding defense counsel from questioning Officer Tallion about his arrest of Vela for unlicensed massage when Vela was, in fact, licensed. The district court did not err by excluding evidence of the massage license violation. Hawai`i Rules of Evidence Rule 402; State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawai`i 307, 314-15, 909 P.2d 1122, 1129-30 (1996).
(2) Vela contends the district court abused its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of Officer Tallion with respect to other prostitution cases in which he was involved. The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of Officer Tallion with respect to other cases. Slocum v. State of Florida, 757 So.2d 1246, 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000); State v. Newton, 59 Conn. App. 507, 521, 757 A.2d 1140, 1149 (2000).
(3) Vela contends there was insufficient evidence to convict her of Prostitution. There was sufficient evidence to convict Vela of Prostitution. State v. Eastman, 81 Hawa`i 131, 135, 913 P.2d 57, 61 (1996).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment filed on November 17, 2003 in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 9, 2004.
Blake T. Okimoto and
Anne M. Okimoto
for defendant-appellant.
Daniel H. Shimizu,
Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for plaintiff-appellee.
1.
The
Honorable Barbara P. Richardson presided.