NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 11-1-1881)
Thomas R. Waters, for Defendant-Appellant.
Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Fujise, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Tevita Le'okava Aholelei (Aholelei) appeals from the July 18, 2012 Judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) on one count of Manslaughter in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-702(1)(a) (Supp. 2012) for the death of Solomone Niusini (Niusini), also known as Mone, outside of a bar in Kalihi in the early morning hours of December 18, 2011. Aholelei was sentenced to a term of twenty years incarceration, with a mandatory minimum term of one year as a repeat offender.
On appeal, Aholelei argues that (1) "there was no substantial evidence to support [his] conviction where he did not recklessly cause [Niusini's] death[;]" (2) "the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce the autopsy photographs[;]" (3) "the trial court abused its discretion in denying [his] motion for mistrial[;]" and (4) the State's "statements during closing argument that misstated the law and misrepresented the evidence constituted misconduct."
After careful review of the issues raised, the parties' arguments, the record on appeal and the applicable legal authorities, we resolve Aholelei's appeal as follows and affirm.
1. Aholelei argues that the State "failed to prove that [Aholelei] had recklessly caused" the death of Niusini because the "convoluted and implausible sequence of events that led to [Niusini's] death could not have been foreseen!.]"
[E]vidence 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; the same standard applies whether the case was before a judge or jury. The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.
State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) (quoting State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai'i 128, 145, 938 P.2d 559, 576 (1997)). "[I]t is not necessary for the prosecution to introduce direct evidence of a defendant's state of mind in order to prove that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly." State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai'i 131, 140-41, 913 P.2d 57, 66-67 (1996). Instead, "[t]he mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." Eastman 81 Hawai'i at 141, 913 P.2d at 67.
There is no dispute that Aholelei struck Niusini on the chin, causing Niusini to fall backwards onto the sidewalk, where he hit his head and subsequently died. Witnesses testified that there was no observed fighting or arguing before Niusini was hit in the face; he did not attempt to block or dodge the punch or brace himself as he fell straight back; the force of the punch was "hard, " based on the volume and sound of the punch when it landed; that Niusini's head "flies back" with the force of the punch and hit the ground first; and that the impact of Niusini's head on the pavement could be heard across the street. Testimony was also given that Aholelei continued to try to engage with Niusini, waving his arms and exhorting him to "get up" even after the latter was down on the sidewalk and a "gurgling sound" could be heard from his mouth. Given this testimony, it was reasonable to infer that Aholelei intentionally struck Niusini with enough force to send him to the pavement and recklessly disregarded the risk that in doing so Niusini could hit his head and die.
Aholelei fails to provide any authority for his contention that events involved here constituted a "convoluted and implausible sequence of events." To the contrary,
While it may be rare for a person to die from a punch, fistfights often result in serious bodily injury and have been known to end in death. See, e.g., [Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598, 599-600 (Pa.Super. Ct. 2 010)]; Hall v. State, 951 So.2d 91, 92 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) ("This case is another tragic instance of manslaughter by single punch to the head."). A reasonable person would have been aware of this possibility, particularly under the circumstances of this case. A reasonable person would have understood that the head is a vital and vulnerable part of the body, and that a significant enough blow to the head could prove fatal. Absent evidence that [defendant] was actually unaware of this risk that a reasonable person would have perceived, we find the "awareness" prong of recklessness to have been met because a rational ...