State v. Steiner

531 P.3d 1084, 153 Haw. 251

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 30, 2023
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000496
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-JUN-2023 08:54 AM Dkt. 47 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENT STEINER, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAILUKU DIVISION (CASE NO. 2DDC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Kent Steiner appeals from the

District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division's

July 20, 2022 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, 1

convicting him of (1) "Closing of areas," in violation of Hawai‘i

Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-146-4(a) (Amended 1999); and

(2) "Swimming; nudity," in violation of HAR § 13-146-38(a)

1 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(Amended 1999). 2 The district court sentenced Steiner to pay a

fine of $200.00 (suspending $100.00 on the condition that there

was no conviction for similar violations in six months), and a

criminal injury fee of $30.00, for each offense. On appeal,

Steiner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve

Steiner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence below,

and reverse in part and affirm in part.

2 HAR § 13-146-4(a), Closing of areas, provides as follows:

The board or its authorized representative may establish a reasonable schedule of visiting hours for all or portions of the premises and close or restrict the public use of all or any portion thereof, when necessary for the protection of the area or the safety and welfare of persons or property, by the posting of appropriate signs indicating the extent and scope of closure. All persons shall observe and abide by the officially posted signs designating closed areas and visiting hours.

(Emphasis added.)

HAR § 13-146-2 (Amended 2010) defines "Premises" as "any lands within the state park system."

HAR § 13-146-38(a), Swimming; nudity, provides as follows:

A person may swim or bathe except in waters and at times where these activities are prohibited in the interest of public health or safety. These waters shall be designated by posting of appropriate signs. No person shall bathe, swim, walk, sunbathe, or remain on the premises in the nude, or take outdoor showers in the nude, except for bathing or changing clothes within enclosed facilities provided for these purposes or for the exposed breast of a nursing mother in the act of breastfeeding an infant.

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

For sufficiency of the evidence, "[t]he 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. Matavale, 115 Hawai‘i

149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007) (citation omitted).

The "evidence 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[.]" Id. at 157, 166 P.3d at 330 (citation omitted).

"Substantial evidence" as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence.

115 Hawai‘i at 158, 166 P.3d at 331 (citation and brackets

omitted). "Verdicts based on conflicting evidence will not be

set aside where there is substantial evidence to support the

trier of fact's findings." State v. Sua, 92 Hawai‘i 61, 69, 987

P.2d 959, 967 (1999) (citation and brackets omitted).

(1) We first address Steiner's contention that "there

was no substantial evidence that [he] recklessly disregarded the

signs indicating that he was in a closed area or that he

recklessly swam while nude . . . ." because Department of Land

and Natural Resources Conservation and Resource Enforcement

Officer Wyatt Burns (Officer Burns) "did not see how [he] had

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

entered the ocean and could not confirm that [he] had passed the

closed-area or nudity-prohibited signs before he entered the

ocean." Steiner asserts that because "the State failed to prove

that [he] was aware of the prohibitions on the signs there was

no substantial evidence that he recklessly failed to abide by

the directives on the sign regarding" the offenses.

"A person acts recklessly with respect to his conduct

when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable

risk that the person's conduct is of the specified nature."

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 702-206(3)(a) (2014).

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) (emphasis added).

Due to the difficulty of proving state of mind by

direct evidence in criminal cases, "proof by circumstantial

evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances

surrounding the defendant's conduct is sufficient. Thus, the

mind of an alleged offender may be read from his acts, conduct

and inferences fairly drawn from all the circumstances." State

v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 254, 831 P.2d 924, 934 (1992) (cleaned

up).

As for the park closure offense, the evidence shows

Officer Burns encountered Steiner on February 20, 2022 at

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

4:15 p.m. 3 The State presented a photo of a sign showing Mākena

State Park closed at 7:00 p.m. on the weekdays, and closure time

on the weekends depended on the beach, with "Oneloa (Big) Beach"

and "Oneuli (Black Sand) Beach" closing at 7:00 p.m. and "Pu‘u

Ola‘i (Little) Beach" closing at 4:00 p.m. But the photo of the

sign in evidence and Officer Burns' testimony did not indicate

how the signage informed a person they were at Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach

(closing at 4:00 p.m.), as opposed to Oneloa or Oneuli beaches

(closing at 7:00 p.m.), within Mākena State Park.

Thus, when viewing the evidence presented, even in the

light most favorable to the prosecution, there was insufficient

evidence to establish Steiner recklessly disregarded the

"officially posted signs designating closed areas and visiting

hours." See HAR § 13-146-4(a); State v. Vliet, 91 Hawai‘i 288,

293, 983 P.2d 189, 194 (1999). Without sufficient evidence,

Steiner's conviction for the park closure offense must be

reversed, and we need not address Steiner's remaining arguments

challenging this conviction.

As for the nudity offense, two photos in evidence of

signs at Mākena State Park showed that nudity was prohibited,

regardless of the beach. Officer Burns testified that there

were "some belongings that was placed on the beach[,]" and

3 We take judicial notice that February 20, 2022 was a Sunday. See Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 201.

5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Steiner dressed from those belongings. Signs prohibiting nudity

were twenty and thirty yards away from Steiner's belongings on

the beach. The signage, the belongings on the beach, and

Steiner were all located within Mākena State Park.

Based on the exhibits in evidence and Officer Burns'

testimony, it is fair to infer that Steiner being nude on the

premises at Mākena State Park "involve[d] a gross deviation from

the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe

in the same situation." HRS § 702-206(3)(d). Thus, there was

sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion

that the State proved the requisite state of mind for the nudity

offense.

(2) Steiner next contends that he was not within the

park's premises, arguing that he "was in the ocean waters, not

within the Park boundaries, when [Officer] Burns first saw him"

and that he "only walked onto the beach and within the Park

boundaries when [Officer] Burns gave him a lawful order to do

so." 4

HAR § 13-146-38(a) provides in part that "[n]o person

shall bathe, swim, walk, sunbathe, or remain on the premises in

Steiner also argues that Officer Burns' calling him out of the water 4

was entrapment under HRS § 702-237(1)(b) (2014). Steiner fails to show in his points of error where he raised this affirmative defense during trial below. Thus, we consider this argument waived. See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4); State v. Nicholson, 120 Hawai‘i 480, 485, 210 P.3d 3, 8 (App. 2009) (explaining that defendant "waived his entrapment claim by failing to raise it in the circuit court").

6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the nude . . . ." The State was required to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Steiner was "on the premises" for the

nudity offense. See generally, State v. Lima, 64 Haw. 470, 474,

643 P.2d 536, 539 (1982).

"Premises" is defined as "any lands within the state

park system." HAR § 13-146-2. The State Park System is "those

public lands or lands under the control and management of the

division of state parks[,]" and land is defined as including

"upland, land under water, beaches, water, and water rights."

HAR § 13-146-2; HRS § 184-1 (2011).

Officer Burns testified that Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach is located

within Mākena State Park, and he observed Steiner "on the

shoreline kind of within the waters swimming about." Officer

Burns testified that he stood by "some belongings that was

placed on the beach" and called Steiner over. Steiner walked

over to Officer Burns' location and Officer Burns observed that

Steiner was nude. Steiner then dressed with the items next to

Officer Burns, and those items were "within the boundaries of

Pu‘u Ola‘i Beach[.]"

Swimming in the ocean aside, Officer Burns' testimony

was evidence from which it could justifiably be inferred that

Steiner was on the beach nude prior to entering the water. See

State v. Dow, 96 Hawai‘i 320, 324, 30 P.3d 926, 930 (2001) ("we

review evidence for sufficiency in the light most favorable to

7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the prosecution, giving full play to the right of the fact

finder to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw

justifiable inferences of fact") (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted); see generally, Batson, 73 Haw. at 254,

831 P.2d at 934. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support

the district court's conclusion that Steiner was "on the

premises" for the nudity offense.

(3) Finally, Steiner contends that he "was not 'nude'

within the meaning of HAR § 13-146-38(a)" because he "was torso-

deep in the water. [His] genital and pubic areas were not

visible. It was not until [Officer] Burns gave [him] a lawful

order to leave the water that [Officer] Burns saw that [he] was

unclothed."

"Nude" is defined as "uncovered post-pubertal human

genitals, pubic areas, or the nipple or areola of post-pubertal

human female breast." HAR § 13-146-2.

The State presented a photo of Steiner walking out of

the water with his genitals and pubic area uncovered, which was

direct evidence that Steiner was nude. And Officer Burns

testified that Steiner then dressed from the belongings on the

beach, which was evidence from which it could be inferred that

Steiner was nude prior to entering the water. Thus, there was

8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion

that Steiner was nude.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse Steiner's

conviction of the "Closing of areas" offense, and affirm

Steiner's conviction of the "nudity" offense.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 30, 2023.

On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge Rachel K.X. Murakami, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Renee Ishikawa Delizo, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge County of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.