State v. Giugliano ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-JUN-2022
08:22 AM
Dkt. 34 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RYAN M. GIUGLIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Ryan M. Giugliano (Giugliano)
appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit's (district
court)1 July 19, 2021 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment,
convicting him of Harassment, in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106(1) (2014).2
On appeal, Giugliano contends (1) there was no
substantial evidence he acted with the requisite intent to
harass, annoy, or alarm the complaining witness, Mark Trahan
1
The Honorable Joseph P. Florendo, Jr. presided at trial. The
Honorable Cynthia T. Tai presided at sentencing.
2
HRS § 711-1106(1)(a) provides that "[a] person commits the offense of
harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, that
person . . . [s]trikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in
an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical
contact[.]"
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(Trahan), and (2) the State failed to disprove his justification
defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
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, we resolve
Giugliano's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) There was substantial evidence Giugliano intended
to harass, annoy, or alarm Trahan.
At the time of the subject incident, Giugliano and
Trahan lived in the same apartment. Trahan testified that prior
to October 30, 2020, he returned from a trip and got into a
dispute with Giugliano about an electric bill. When Trahan
returned from work the next day, his things were spread out in
the living room, his room was trashed, and his father's wedding
band and other items were missing. On October 30, 2020, Trahan
asked Giugliano to give his property back. Giugliano denied
taking the items and walked to his room. As Giugliano was about
to shut the door, Trahan put his foot in the threshold so the
door could not be shut. Giugliano then opened the door and
attacked Trahan, who fell back as Giugliano wrestled him to the
ground. They ended up in the bathroom with Giugliano's arms
wrapped around Trahan's upper chest area. Giugliano squeezed
until the point it was harder for Trahan to breathe and the
volume of his yells for help decreased. Trahan denied that he
made physical contact with Giugliano at any time. Trahan stated
the incident made him feel scared.
Here, it is reasonable to infer from Giugliano's acts
of opening the door and wrapping his arms around and squeezing
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Trahan's chest until breathing became difficult that it was his
conscious object to harass, annoy, or alarm Trahan. State v.
Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934 (1992) (explaining
that "the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts,
conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all circumstances").
Furthermore, Trahan testified that the incident made him feel
scared.
Thus, when considered in the strongest light for the
prosecution, Trahan's testimony was substantial evidence that
Giugliano acted with the requisite state of mind. State v.
Pulse, 83 Hawai#i 229, 244, 925 P.2d 797, 812 (1996) (explaining
that "[t]he testimony of one percipient witness can provide
sufficient evidence to support a conviction" and "evidence
adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest
light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the
legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction").
(2) Giugliano's self-defense claim rests upon his
account of the incident, which the district court did not
believe.
Self-defense is a justification defense. State v.
Padilla, 114 Hawai#i 507, 515, 164 P.3d 765, 773 (App. 2007); HRS
§ 703-304(1) (2014). "Self-defense is not an affirmative
defense, and the prosecution has the burden of disproving it once
evidence of justification has been adduced." State v. Culkin, 97
Hawai#i 206, 215, 35 P.3d 233, 242 (2001). "The prosecution
disproves a justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt when
the trial court believes the prosecution's case and disbelieves
the defendant's case." State v. Jhun, 83 Hawai#i 472, 483, 927
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
P.2d 1355, 1366 (1996) (citing State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw. App.
448, 456–57, 877 P.2d 891, 895 (1994)).
Here, the district court found that, when Trahan put
his foot in the door, he did not use force upon Giugliano. In
other words, the district court believed Trahan's testimony that
he only placed his foot in the doorway, and did not believe
Giugliano's claim that Trahan kicked the door in causing injury
that justified Giugliano using force in self-defense.
Determining the credibility of the conflicting testimony was the
province of the district court. State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai#i
255, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999) (explaining that "it is well-
settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues
dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact") (cleaned
up).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's
July 19, 2021 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 24, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Marshall K.P. Pautsch,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Stephen L. Frye, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
County of Hawai#i,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
4