NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOS. 25655 AND 25657
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
NO. 25655
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HABIB SHABAZZ, also known as "T-Bone," Defendant-Appellant,
and MARIO CRAWLEY, also known as "Quick," HARVEY CARVIS,
JAMES SHAKESPEARE, MEKA UGOEZI, and LLOYD SWANSON, Defendants
and
NO. 25657
APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CR. NO. 99-0693)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Burns, C.J., Watanabe and Lim, JJ.)
After a painstaking review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the points of error raised by Defendants as follows:
1. For their first point of error on appeal, Defendants aver that the circuit court's February 24, 2003 order denying Crawley's September 16, 2002 motion to dismiss indictment (3) was error. Although Defendants style their motion as one based upon prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, the underlying arguments are mere and impuissant allegations of the State's failure to adduce before the grand jury "evidence which may have tended to undermine the victim's credibility." State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 255, 589 P.2d 517, 525 (1978), overruled on other grounds by State v. Chong, 86 Hawai`i 282, 949 P.2d 122 (1997). Our independent review of the record revealed no indication of the material circumstance: a failure on the part of the State to present "evidence of a clearly exculpatory nature[.]" Id. at 245, 589 P.2d at 520 (emphasis in the original). Even if we assume, arguendo, that Defendants' motion to dismiss indictment had colorable roots in allegations of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, we could turn up no such misconduct -- let alone misconduct, singly or in concert, that "invade[d] the province of the grand jury or tend[ed] to induce action other than that which the grand jurors, in their uninfluenced judgment, deemed warranted on the evidence fairly presented before them." Chong, 86 Hawai`i at 289, 949 P.2d at 129. Hence, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crawley's motion to dismiss indictment. State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280, 283, 711 P.2d 731, 734 (1985).
2. For their other point of error on appeal, Defendants contend there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. We disagree. There was substantial evidence to support the convictions. "The testimony of one percipient witness can provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Moreover, it is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses." State v. Pulse, 83 Hawai`i 229, 244-45, 925 P.2d 797, 812-13 (1996) (brackets, citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also State v. Richie, 88 Hawai`i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998). In this connection, we observe that the circuit court is not required to express findings of fact and conclusions of law in rendering its decision, even on the material elements of an offense, where none are requested. Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 23(c) (2003); State v. Wells, 7 Haw. App. 510, 512-13, 780 P.2d 585, 586-87 (1989); State v. Bigelow, 2 Haw. App. 654, 654, 638 P.2d 873, 874 (1982). And our review of the record in the same regard revealed nothing that even remotely suggests exceptionable bias on the part of the circuit court judge. State v. Yip, 92 Hawai`i 98, 106, 987 P.2d 996, 1004 (App. 1999).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 28, 2003 judgment and the February 21, 2003 amended judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, July 26, 2005.
Lane Y. Takahashi
and
Glenn D. Choy,
for defendants-appellants.
James M. Anderson,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for plaintiff-appellee.
1.
The
Honorable Sandra A. Simms presided.
2. During trial,
Defendant-Appellant Mario Crawley (Crawley) testified that his first
name is
"Marlo," not "Mario" as he is referred to in various documents filed in
this case.