State v. Landon

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 19, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000433
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-JUN-2026 07:58 AM Dkt. 58 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORI LANDON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTA-23-01167)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Lori Landon (Landon) appeals from

the June 14, 2024 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment

(Judgment) entered against her by the District Court of the Third

Circuit (District Court).1

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai i

(the State) filed a Criminal Complaint charging Landon with,

inter alia, Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an

Intoxicant (OVUII) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3) (2020). The District Court held

trial on February 2, 2024, and June 14, 2024, and found that the

State proved OVUII beyond a reasonable doubt.

1 The Honorable Kimberly Tsuchiya presided . NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Landon raises two points of error on appeal, contending

that the District Court erred by: (1) finding Landon guilty of

OVUII because there was no substantial evidence to support the

conviction; and (2) sentencing Landon to complete fourteen hours

of substance abuse treatment and obtain a substance abuse

evaluation because such requirements cannot be imposed except as

conditions of probation.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Landon's

points of error as follows:

(1) Landon argues, variously, that the evidence is

insufficient to support a conviction of OVUII. Landon points to

the fact that other than her "lone traffic violation," her

driving was flawless. She further notes that her speech was not

slurred, she did not struggle to maintain her balance, and that

"[a]lthough [Hawai i County Police Department (HPD) Officer Dylan

Chaves (Officer Chaves)] testified that Landon held on to her

vehicle while exiting, who does not hold on to their vehicle door

while exiting?"

Officer Chaves testified, inter alia, that he witnessed

Landon ignore a red light and execute a U-turn, cutting off a

pickup truck in front of him. After he pulled Landon over,

Officer Chaves observed that Landon had red, watery eyes and an

odor of alcohol on her breath. Landon fumbled through her wallet

when Officer Chaves asked for her driver's license, insurance,

and registration, and initially handed him an expired insurance

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

card. He also observed a SVEDKA gin bottle in the passenger seat

of her car, which was noted by another officer to be half-empty.

Officer Chaves only performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test,

due to a slight decline in the area outside Landon's vehicle, but

observed multiple clues of intoxication.

Landon testified that she met up with a couple at a

bar, planning on driving them to the airport. Landon further

testified that upon her arrival at the bar, she observed the

couple drinking what appeared to be iced teas and told the

bartender, "I'll have an iced tea, too." She said that they did

not taste like iced tea, but she did not think they were

alcoholic. She drank four of them in a little over an hour.

When they left the bar, they were headed to the airport and

that's pretty much the last thing she could remember because, as

she put it, "It's like the alcohol just affected my memory."

The District Court credited Officer Chaves's testimony

and found Landon's testimony that she did not know she was

drinking alcohol not to be credible.

To prove OVUII under HRS § 291E-61(a)(1), the State

must show beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the suspect was

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (2) "under the influence

of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair [her] normal mental

faculties or ability to care for [herself] and guard against

casualty." HRS § 291E-61(a)(1); State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai i 48, 53-54, 276 P.3d 617, 622-23 (2012).

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction when,

viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, there was

substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of

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

fact. State v. Smith, 106 Hawai i 365, 372, 105 P.3d 242, 249

(App. 2004). We do not weigh evidence on appeal or second guess

credibility determinations. Id. "Sufficient evidence to support

a conviction can be established through the testimony of a single

witness." Id. A defendant's own testimony can constitute proof

beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed an element

of the offense. State v. Torres, 70 Haw. 219, 223, 768 P.2d 230,

233 (1989) (Appellant's own admission at trial that he sold the

gun on April 18, 1986, was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that

he exercised "control" over the shotgun within the meaning of HRS

§ 134–7(b)).

Upon review of all of the evidence presented at trial,

we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain Landon's

conviction of OVUII.

(2) Landon argues that the District Court erred when

it included substance abuse treatment and evaluation as part of

Landon's sentence because under State v. Agdinaoay, 150 Hawai i

223, 500 P.3d 408 (2021), "substance abuse treatment requirements

can only be imposed as conditions of probation" and HRS § 291E-

61(b) mandates that an OVUII offender "shall be sentenced without

the possibility of probation."

Agdinaoay is inapposite. The statute at issue in

Agdinaoay has since been amended and HRS § 291E-61(b)(1)(A)

specifically provides that a first-time offender of OVUII will be

sentenced to "[a] fourteen-hour minimum substance abuse

rehabilitation program, including education and counseling, or

other comparable programs deemed appropriate by the court[.]"

Section 291E therefore authorizes imposition of rehabilitation

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

programs by its own terms. Landon's arguments to the contrary

are without merit.

For these reasons, the District Court's June 14, 2024

Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 19, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard for Defendant-Appellant Associate Judge

Charles E. Murray, III, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge County of Hawai i, for Plaintiff-Appellee