NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 09-JUN-2022 08:01 AM Dkt. 42 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRZEMYSLAW D. MANIECKI, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Przemyslaw D. Maniecki (Maniecki) appeals from the January 30, 2020 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment,1 and the October 12, 2020 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order,2 both filed by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court). Maniecki was convicted of Criminal Property Damage in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-823(1).3 On appeal, Maniecki contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

arrived and took reports regarding the incident. Saifoloi testified Maniecki was intoxicated and could barely standup and walk on the bus. The District Court found Saifoloi's testimony credible. "It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." State v. Mattiello, 90 Hawai#i 255, 259, 978 P.2d 693, 697 (1999) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted; block quote format changed). Thus, there was substantial evidence Maniecki damaged the windshield of the bus that Saifoloi was driving. Maniecki damaged the "property of another," because Saifoloi had possession of the bus while driving it. HRS § 708- 800. There was substantial evidence Maniecki intended to damage a windshield when he flung his backpack at it. Intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the circumstances surrounding Maniecki's conduct. See State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai#i 85, 92, 976 P.2d 399, 406 (1999) (citations omitted). Maniecki testified that he got on the wrong bus and exited from the front door with his backpack. Saifoloi stated that Maniecki started swearing at Saifoloi after being informed he could exit and a different bus would take him to town, Maniecki stated "F you" as he exited, and he flung his backpack at the windshield. Maniecki claims there was insufficient evidence as to lack of consent to damage the windshield because the record did not establish the owner of the bus did not consent. The State was not required to prove the "owner" of the property did not consent to damage of the bus.

"Owner" means person, other than the defendant, who has possession of or any other interest in, the property involved, even though that possession or interest is unlawful; however, a secured party is not an owner in relation to a defendant who is a debtor with respect to property in which the secured party has only a security interest.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRS § 708-800. HRS § 708-823(1) requires damage be done "without the other's consent." "Other's consent" is in reference to the "property of another," not an "owner." As noted above, the "property of another" element in this case was satisfied by Saifoloi's possession of the bus. Thus, the State was required to prove Saifoloi did not consent to damage of the windshield. "[L]ack of consent to the violent destruction of a person's property may be proved circumstantially on the basis of logical and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence adduced and common human experience." Pone, 78 Hawai#i at 274, 892 P.2d at 467 (citations and italics omitted). Saifoloi testified he stopped the bus and called central control, after which the police arrived and took reports about the incident. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the circumstantial evidence and common human experience support a logical and reasonable inference that Saifoloi summoned the police to report the incident because he did not consent to damage of the windshield. See id.; Matavale, 115 Hawai#i at 157-58, 166 P.3d at 330-31. On appeal, Maniecki argues that "[i]t is irrelevant whether Maniecki was intoxicated or reeked of alcohol," but then cites State v. Souza, 72 Haw. 246, 813 P.2d 1384 (1991) to claim "[a]ssuming arguendo that Maniecki was intoxicated, a reasonable inference that Maniecki acted with an intentional or knowing state of mind cannot be drawn. Saifoloi stated that that [sic] Maniecki could 'barely stand and walk' because he was 'pretty intoxicated.'" "Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is not admissible to negative the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense." HRS § 702-230(2);4 Souza, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

72 Haw. at 249, 813 P.2d at 1386. Maniecki is precluded from arguing that self-induced intoxication may be considered by the trier of fact to demonstrate he did not act with the requisite state of mind. As discussed above, there was substantial evidence Maniecki caused damage to the windshield when he flung his backpack at it, and that he intentionally caused the damage. For the foregoing reasons, the January 30, 2020 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, and the October 12, 2020 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, both filed by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 9, 2022. On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Taryn R. Tomasa Presiding Judge for Defendant-Appellant /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Loren J. Thomas Associate Judge Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

4 (...continued) intoxication of the defendant shall be admissible to prove or negative the conduct alleged or the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense. Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is admissible to prove or negative conduct or to prove state of mind sufficient to establish an element of an offense. Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is not admissible to negative the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense.