gross deviation standard in Hawaii

2022HRS § 702-206(3)(d) (2014). "[G]iven the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, we have consistently held that proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the defendant's conduct is sufficient." State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai#i 85, 92, 976 P.2d 399, 406 (1999) (brackets, ellipsis, citation & internal quotation marks omitted).

2021"A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning of this section if, considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, the disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation." HRS § 702- 206(3)(d) (2014). 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER consistently held that proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the defendant's conduct is sufficient." State v. Stocker, 90

2023In a bench trial, the trial judge, as the trier of fact, "is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in 2 (...continued) . . . . (d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which is not performed under any authorized license or permit[.] . . . . (2) Noise is unreasonable, within the meaning of subsection (1)(b), if considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to the person, including the nature of the location and the time of the day or night, the person's conduct involves a gross deviation from the

2023In a bench trial, the trial judge, as the trier of fact, "is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in 2 (...continued) . . . . (d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which is not performed under any authorized license or permit[.] . . . . (2) Noise is unreasonable, within the meaning of subsection (1)(b), if considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to the person, including the nature of the location and the time of the day or night, the person's conduct involves a gross deviation from the

2021Worden herself admitted that she knowingly passed several other vehicles on the right, which she knew she should not have done, and that she "just zoomed on the right and pulled in and continued in the southbound lane." The District Court could reasonably have inferred based on the overwhelming evidence of Worden's actions, including her own testimony regarding her actions, that Worden acted with a reckless state of mind, i.e., that she consciously disregarded a 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER substantial and unjustifiable risk to the safety of persons or

2021Further, Worden's own testimony regarding her actions, including that she was "[d]esperately trying to pass people . . . on the right," which she knew she should not have done, supports the inference that she made a conscious decision to drive recklessly. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Upon review of the properly admitted evidence, we conclude there was substantial evidence that Worden's conduct put other persons and property on the Highway at "substantial and unjustifiable risk," HRS § 702-206(3), that Worden consciously disregarded this risk, id., and

2026Considered in the strongest light for the prosecution, Calaycay, 145 Hawai#i at 196, 449 P.3d at 1194 , the evidence was sufficient to show Lucero recklessly disregarded the risk that he was driving his car at a speed exceeding eighty miles per hour, and that disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe under the circumstances of the case.

2026Considered in the strongest light for the prosecution, Calaycay, 145 Hawai#i at 196, 449 P.3d at 1194, the evidence was sufficient to show Lucero recklessly disregarded the risk that he was driving his car at a speed exceeding eighty miles per hour, and that disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe under the circumstances of the case.

2021Considering the entire record in this case, we conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of Officer Taniguchi's testimony regarding the speed reading from his radar device contributed to Worden's conviction. (2) Considering only the evidence properly admitted at trial, State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai#i 382, 414 n.30, 910 P.2d 695 , 727 n.30 (1996), in the strongest light for the prosecution, State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007), we also conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Worden's conviction for reckless driving.

2007Thus, taking the evidence in the strongest light for the Petitioner, the evidence was of sufficient quality and probity to enable a reasonably cautious person to conclude that Respondent disregarded the safety of persons or property, Bui, 104 Hawai'i at 467 , 92 P.3d at 476 (citations omitted), and that such circumstances, Eastman, 81 Hawai'i at 141 , 913 P.2d at 67 , reasonably demonstrate that Respondent’s disregard of the risk to others was conscious and “involve[d] a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the same situation,” 6 HRS § 702-206

2007Thus, taking the evidence in the strongest light for the Petitioner, the evidence was of sufficient quality and probity to enable a reasonably cautious person to conclude that Respondent disregarded the safety of persons or property, Bui, 104 Hawai'i at 467 , 92 P.3d at 476 (citations omitted), and that such circumstances, Eastman, 81 Hawai'i at 141 , 913 P.2d at 67 , reasonably demonstrate that Respondent’s disregard of the risk to others was conscious and “involve[d] a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the same situation,” 6 HRS § 702-206