State v. Wong
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NO. 24321 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALAN C. WONG, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT (CR. NO. 99-0461(3)) (By: MEMORANDUM OPINION Burns, C.J., Watanabe and Foley, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Alan C. Wong (Wong) appeals from the Judgment filed May 4, 2001; the Order of Resentencing/ Revocation of Probation filed October 18, 2001; and the Order Revoking Probation and Re-sentencing Defendant filed October 30, 2001, in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit1 (circuit court). On appeal, Wong contends the circuit court reversibly erred by (1) admitting State's Exhibits 6B, 6D and 6E into evidence, (2) admitting State's Exhibits 16 through 18 into evidence, and (3) taking judicial notice of Kaulana Street as a public roadway. Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to 1 The Honorable Joseph E. Cardoza presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Wong's points of error as follows: (1) Under the standard for establishing chain of custody as set forth in State v. DeSilva, 64 Haw. 40, 41-42, 636 P.2d 728, 730 (1981), the circuit court relied on ample testimony in the record to be reasonably certain that State's Exhibits 6B, 6D and 6E were not tampered with and thus properly found that an adequate chain of custody was established. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the gun and both sets of bullets as contained in State's Exhibits 6B, 6D and 6E. (2) and (3) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence State's Exhibits 16 through 18, which formed the bases of its judicial notice, and by informing the jury of what the exhibits reflected. Pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Evidence Rule 201(b)(2), the circuit court properly took judicial notice of Exhibits 16 through 18, which established that Kaulana Street, as deeded from Kahului Development Co., Ltd. to the County of Maui, was accepted on June 7, 1968 by the Maui Board of Supervisors as a public roadway. Furthermore, Wong presented no evidence indicating that Kaulana Street was not a public roadway after June 7, 1968. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment filed May 4, 2001; the Order of Resentencing/Revocation of Probation filed October 18, 2001; and the Order Revoking Probation and Resentencing Defendant filed October 30, 2001, in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 6, 2003. On the briefs: Kyle B. Coffman for defendant-appellant. Chief Judge Arleen Y. Watanabe, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, for plaintiff-appellee. Associate Judge Associate Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
