State v. Avalos ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    29-MAY-2020
    08:22 AM
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
    DIEGO I. AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    #EWA DIVISION
    (CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Ginoza, C.J., and Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
    Defendant-Appellant Diego I. Avalos (Avalos) appeals
    from the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (Judgment),
    filed on March 18, 2019, in the District Court of the First
    Circuit, #Ewa Division (District Court).1/
    Following a bench trial, Avalos was convicted of Sexual
    Assault in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised
    Statutes (HRS) § 707-733(1)(a) (2014).2/ On appeal, Avalos
    contends there was insufficient evidence to support his
    1/
    The Honorable Sherri-Ann Iha presided.
    2/
    HRS § 707-733(1)(a) provides, in relevant part:
    Sexual assault in the fourth degree. (1) A person
    commits the offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree
    if:
    (a)   The person knowingly subjects another person,
    not married to the actor, to sexual contact by
    compulsion or causes another person, not married
    to the actor, to have sexual contact with the
    actor by compulsion[.]
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    conviction, specifically, to prove that the alleged conduct was
    committed "by complusion" and that Avalos was the person who
    committed the offense.
    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 Avalos's point of error as follows:
    Sufficient evidence to support a conviction requires
    substantial evidence as to every material element of the offense
    charged. State v. Grace, 107 Hawai#i 133, 139, 
    111 P.3d 28
    , 34
    (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawai#i 409, 422, 
    23 P.3d 744
    , 757 (App. 2001)). Substantial evidence is "credible
    evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to
    enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion."
    
    Id.
     The evidence must be "viewed in the light most favorable to
    the prosecution and in full recognition of the province of the
    trier of fact," who must "determine credibility, weigh the
    evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact." 
    Id.
    As relevant here, a person commits the offense of
    sexual assault in the fourth degree if the person knowingly
    subjects another person, not married to the actor, to sexual
    contact by compulsion. HRS § 707-733(1)(a). "'Sexual contact'
    means any touching, other than acts of 'sexual penetration', of
    the sexual or other intimate parts of another, . . . whether
    directly or through the clothing or other material intended to
    cover the sexual or other intimate parts." HRS § 707-700 (Supp.
    2016). Touching the buttocks constitutes sexual contact under
    HRS § 707-700. State v. Silver, 125 Hawai#i 1, 7, 
    249 P.3d 1141
    ,
    1147 (2011). "'Compulsion' means absence of consent, or a
    threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of
    public humiliation, property damage, or financial loss." HRS
    § 707-700 (2014). "Consent signifies voluntary agreement or
    concurrence." State v. Adams, 
    10 Haw. App. 593
    , 605, 
    880 P.2d 226
    , 234 (1994) (citing Webster's Third New International
    Dictionary (1981) at *482). Here, a conviction for violation of
    HRS § 707-733(1)(a) required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    the complaining witness (CW) was not married to Avalos and did
    not consent to sexual contact by Avalos, and that Avalos knew he
    did not have the CW's consent to engage in such contact. See id.
    (statute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of compulsion
    in the context of sexual penetration under HRS § 707-731(1)(a)).
    At trial, CS, a friend of the CW, testified to the
    following: At the time of the incident on December 8, 2016, CS
    had known the CW for a few months. During that time, the CW was
    in a relationship with a man who was not then in the courtroom,
    i.e., not Avalos. On December 8, 2016, Avalos made physical
    contact with the CW at Pearlridge Shopping Center, which is in
    the City and County of Honolulu. While CS, the CW, and two other
    women were walking in a crosswalk in a parking lot, Avalos and
    two other men walked toward them, and Avalos "just reached around
    and grabbed [the CW] from the side, then took off running."
    "They had came up and reached and grabbed [the CW's] behind
    pretty aggressively as [Avalos] shouted some type of challenge
    like, [g]rab her butt or run away, something along the line of
    that." Avalos "just groped her . . . [i]t was more an aggressive
    like grab . . . for at least two seconds." Avalos then "took off
    in the other direction" and "[h]is friends pretended as if they
    didn't even know who he was as we were trying to question."
    After the incident, the CW "pulled out her phone and immediately
    started following [Avalos]." She "hollered out that she was
    going to call the police and that it was inappropriate[, a]nd she
    asked for him to come back or hollered at him to come back." CS
    followed Avalos's friends "to see if they would link up." The CW
    and CS's sister "did their best to follow [Avalos,] [b]ut he was
    in a sprint rather, so they lost him fairly quickly." As CS and
    her friend were leaving the mall through T.J. Maxx, they "saw the
    car, a black Honda, pull up with the same male driving it[,]" so
    they "took a picture of his license plate[,]" "went back to [the
    CW] to report that [they] had seen him[,]" and gave the police
    all of that information.
    In further testimony, CS clarified the following: At
    the time of the incident, Avalos was "coming towards [CS], so
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    [she] could see his face[.]" During the incident, Avalos said,
    "Grab her ass and run away. He spoke his action as he did it.
    It was like a challenge between his friends."
    The District Court credited CS's testimony, stating:
    So based on the witness's testimony of the complaining
    witness's reaction as well as the defendant's reaction,
    defendant yelling out his -- his utterance as he ran away
    from the scene, it clearly shows that there was no consent
    in this case and there was offensive touching.
    So the Court is going to find the defendant guilty as
    charged.
    On appeal, Avalos contends "there was not substantial
    evidence to find compulsion" – that "one can just as easily
    speculate that the individuals may have known each other prior to
    the incident and conclude consent." Avalos further contends
    there was no evidence that CS was "able to correctly ascertain or
    interpret the reaction of [the CW]" to the incident. Finally,
    Avalos argues that based on CS's testimony, "she could not have
    had a clear view of the perpetrator's face in order to identify
    whether it was indeed Avalos."
    We decline, however, to pass upon issues regarding the
    credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, which
    are within the province of the trier of fact — here, the District
    Court. See State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai#i 85, 90, 
    976 P.2d 399
    ,
    404 (1999) (quoting State v. Lee, 90 Hawai#i 130, 134, 
    976 P.2d 444
    , 448 (App. 1999)); State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai#i 255, 259,
    
    978 P.2d 693
    , 697 (1999). Upon review of the record, we conclude
    there was substantial evidence that Avalos subjected the CW, who
    was not married to Avalos, to sexual contact by touching her
    buttocks. We further conclude that based on the actions and
    reactions of Avalos and the CW, and the inferences fairly drawn
    from all of the circumstances, the District Court could
    reasonably have inferred that the CW did not consent to the
    sexual contact and that Avalos knew he did not have the CW's
    consent to engage in the contact. See Stocker, 90 Hawai#i at 92,
    976 P.2d at 406. Accordingly, on this record, the evidence was
    sufficient to support Avalos's conviction for Sexual Assault in
    the Fourth Degree.
    4
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment and
    Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed on March 18, 2019, in the
    District Court of the First Circuit, #Ewa Division, is affirmed.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 29, 2020.
    On the briefs:
    /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Andrew I. Kim,                        Chief Judge
    Deputy Public Defender,
    for Defendant-Appellant.
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Sonja P. McCullen,                    Associate Judge
    Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
    City & County of Honolulu,
    for Plaintiff-Appellee.               /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
    Associate Judge
    5