IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
September 20, 2011
STATE OF HAWAII,
MICHAEL A. BREWER,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR NO. 09-1-1729)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, C.J., and Foley and Ginoza, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Brewer (Brewer) appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) *fn1 on October 7, 2010. Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (State) charged Brewer by complaint with Methamphetamine Trafficking in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1240.8 (Supp. 2010).*fn2 A jury found Brewer guilty as charged, and the Circuit Court sentenced him to ten
We resolve Brewer's arguments as follows:
1. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, State v. Ugalino, 107 Hawaii 144, 158, 111 P.3d 39, 53 (App. 2005), there was sufficient evidence to negate Brewer's procuring agent defense and to support Brewer's conviction. The evidence showed, among other things, that Brewer accepted the purchase money from the undercover officers and returned a few minutes later with methamphetamine to complete the transaction. Brewer had no previous relationship with the undercover officers, and Brewer did not simply refer the officers to a seller, but personally handled the exchange of the money for the methamphetamine. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Brewer's conviction. See State v. Davalos, 113 Hawaii 385, 388-89, 153 P.3d 456, 459-60 (2007); State v. Gabrillo, 10 Haw. App. 448, 456, 877 P.2d 891, 895 (1994) (stating that the prosecution meets its burden of disproving a defense when the jury believes the prosecution's case and disbelieves the defense).
2. The Circuit Court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury on the procuring agent defense. The Circuit Court gave the jury the Hawaii Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal (HAWJIC) Instruction No. 7.17 (2009) on the procuring agent defense. Brewer did not object to this instruction and thus argues plain error on appeal. We conclude that HAWJIC Instruction No. 7.17 correctly states the law, and accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err in instructing the jury on the procuring agent defense by using HAWJIC Instruction No. 7.17.
See Davalos, 113 Hawaii at 387, 153 P.3d at 458; State v. Balanza, 93 Hawaii 279, 285-88, 1 P.3d 281, 287-90 (2000); State v. Iuli, 101 Hawaii 196, 203, 65 P.3d 143, 150 (2003). II. We affirm the October 7, 2010, Judgment of the Circuit Court.
Chief Judge Associate Judge Associate Judge