Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pamela L. Taylor

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAII


February 29, 2012

STATE OF HAWAII, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAMELA L. TAYLOR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 08-1-0331)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Foley and Fujise, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Pamela L. Taylor (Taylor) appeals from the "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence" (Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1 on October 7, 2009. Taylor was convicted of second- degree theft by deception, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 708-830(2) (1993) and 708-831(1)(b) (Supp. 2011). The Circuit Court sentenced Taylor to five years of incarceration and ordered her to pay $7,000 in restitution. On appeal, Taylor argues: (1) the Circuit Court erred in failing to instruct the jury on her mistake-of-fact defense; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction.

The Honorable Dexter D. Del Rosario presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We resolve Taylor's arguments on appeal as follows:

(1) Based on State v. Stenger, 122 Hawaii 271, 226

P.3d 441 (2010), we conclude that the Circuit Court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Taylor's mistake-of-fact defense and that such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) Taylor's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction is based on her version of the facts. However, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636, 637, 633 P.2d 1115, 1117 (1981), there was sufficient evidence to support Taylor's conviction. See State v. Yamada, 116 Hawaii 422, 442, 173 P.3d 569, 589 (App. 2007) ("[O]n appeal, this court will not attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence, or interfere with a jury decision based on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence." (block quote format and citation omitted); State v. Smith, 106 Hawaii 365, 372, 105 P.3d 242, 249 (App. 2004) ("It is the province of the jury, not the appellate courts, to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence.").

We vacate the Judgment entered by the Circuit Court, and we remand the case for a new trial consistent with this Summary Disposition Order on the charge of second-degree theft by deception.

Chief Judge

Associate Judge

Associate Judge

20120229

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.