NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR NO. 09-1-1762)
Andre' S. Wooten for Defendant-Appellant
Brian R. Vincent Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nakamura, C.J., and Foley and Fujise, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Alden Asao Iha (Iha) appeals from the Amended Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence (Amended Judgment) entered on July 20, 2011, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court). Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (State) charged Iha by felony information with second-degree theft, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-831(1) (b) (Supp. 2012) . The State alleged that Iha did "intentionally receive, retain or dispose of" property of the complaining witness (CW), which exceeded $300 in value, knowing that the property had been stolen, with intent to deprive the CW of the property.
Iha's charge stemmed from the CWs observation of two men stealing a surfboard and a standup paddle board from the CWs residence at about 11:30 p.m. While the theft was in process, the CW told his wife to call 911. Iha was stopped by the police a short time later, after he was seen driving a Ford Bronco with the CWs two boards sticking out the back. Jase A. Veniegas (Veniegas) and Tiare Kuehnl (Kuehnl) were passengers in Iha's vehicle.
After a jury trial, Iha was found guilty as charged.The Circuit Court sentenced Iha to five years of probation, subject to the special condition that he serve one year of imprisonment.
On appeal, Iha contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the Circuit Court erred in admitting the testimony of a police appraiser regarding the value of the CWs property; (3) the Circuit Court erred in preventing Iha from questioning the lead detective about Kuehnl's statements to the detective and whether the detective recommended charging her; (4) the Circuit Court erred in setting aside its prior order directing the State to return Iha's Ford Bronco; and (5) the Circuit Court erred in denying Iha's request for the return of his posted bail.
As explained below, we affirm Iha's conviction and sentence, but we remand the case for further proceedings with respect to the disputes over Iha's Ford Bronco and his posted bail.
We resolve the issues raised by Iha on appeal as follows:
Iha argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to receive, retain, or dispose of the CW's surfboard and standup paddle board, knowing that they had been stolen, and that ...