NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v.
PARISH PADAMADA, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee
FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 02-1-408)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Burns, C.J., Foley and Fujise, JJ.)
On appeal, Padamada contends the circuit court erred in denying his (1) motion to continue trial and motion for a mistrial in violation of his rights to due process and compulsory process and right not to testify; (2) motion for a new trial in violation of his rights to due process and compulsory process; and (3) motions for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we hold:
(1) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Padamada's motion to continue trial, motion for mistrial, and motion for new trial (the motions for mistrial and for new trial were brought because the circuit court denied Padamada's motion to continue trial and were based on the same grounds as the motion to continue trial). State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai‘i 282, 287, 12 P.3d 873, 878 (2000).
(2) In State v. Keawe, 107 Hawai‘i 1, 108 P.3d 304 (2005), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held:
The standard to be applied by the trial court in ruling upon a motion for a judgment of acquittal is whether, upon the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and in full recognition of the province of the trier of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court employs the same standard of review.Id. at 4, 108 P.3d at 307 (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Pone, 78 Hawai‘i 262, 265, 892 P.2d 455, 458 (1995)). Substantial evidence existed to support the conviction, and the circuit court did not err in denying Padamada's motions for judgment of acquittal. State v. Richie, 88 Hawai‘i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment filed on November 24, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 13, 2005.On the briefs:
Steven D. Strauss
1. The Honorable Terence T.
Yoshioka presided. 2. Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-836.5 (Supp. 2004) provides:
2. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-836.5 (Supp. 2004) provides: