NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 15-MAY-2026 08:25 AM Dkt. 76 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RACHELLE WILHELM, also known as Rachele Wilhelm, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAIʻANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTC-24-005546)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Rachelle Wilhelm (Wilhelm) appeals
from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court) 1
August 28, 2024 "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment" (Judgment).
On April 29, 2024, the Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawaiʻi (State) charged Wilhelm by Complaint with Driving Without
1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
License in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102
(2020). Following a jury-waived trial, the district court found
Wilhelm guilty, sentenced Wilhelm to serve six hours of
community service in lieu of a $100 fine, and waived all
applicable fees upon finding an inability to pay. 2 Wilhelm
appealed.
On appeal, Wilhelm raises two points of error,
contending that "[t]he district court erred when it adjudged
Wilhelm guilty": (1) "on the basis of an improperly admitted
confession"; and (2) "because the evidence adduced at trial was
insufficient to support conviction."
Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we address Wilhelm's points of error on appeal as follows:
(1) Wilhelm contends that the district court erred by
improperly admitting Wilhelm's statement, made to Officer Joshua
Zara (Officer Zara), that Wilhelm "handed [Officer Zara] her
state ID and stated she does not have a license." "[W]e apply a
de novo standard of appellate review to the ultimate issue of
2 The State also alleged that Wilhelm should be sentenced in accordance with HRS § 286-136(b) (2020) for having had two or more prior convictions for Driving Without License in the five-year period preceding the instant offense. The district court found that the State did not prove Wilhelm's prior convictions, and sentenced Wilhelm for Driving Without License as a petty misdemeanor.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the voluntariness of a confession." State v. Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi
413, 422, 465 P.3d 860, 869 (2020) (cleaned up).
A criminal conviction may not be based on an
involuntary confession. Id. at 422-23, 465 P.3d at 869-70.
Wilhelm's statement that she did not have a license was
inculpatory. Pursuant to HRS § 621-26 (2016), "[t]he trial
judge has a duty to determine the admissibility of an
inculpatory statement," and this factual determination must be
made prior to the admission of the statement. State v. Green,
51 Haw. 260, 264, 457 P.2d 505, 508 (1969) (citations omitted).
Here, as the State concedes, the district court did not make the
requisite factual determination prior to admitting Wilhelm's
statement into evidence.
The admission of Wilhelm's statement was therefore
erroneous, and we must consider whether the erroneous admission
of Wilhelm's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi at 435, 465 P.3d at 882 (explaining that
an erroneous admission of a confession is subject to the
harmless error analysis on appeal). "In applying the harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the court is required to
examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable
possibility that the error complained of might have contributed
to the conviction." State v. Jones, 148 Hawaiʻi 152, 170, 468
P.3d 166, 184 (2020) (citation omitted).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The district court's voluntariness determination is
set forth in the following findings of fact (FOFs) and
conclusions of law (COLs) 3:
[FOF] 20. Officer Zara approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked [Wilhelm] for her license, registration, and insurance;
[FOF] 21. [Wilhelm] then handed Officer Zara her state identification card ("state id") and stated that she does not have a license;
[FOF] 22. [Wilhelm's] statement was voluntarily made;
. . . .
[COL] 3. Officer Zara was allowed to order [Wilhelm] to produce her driver's license, car registration, and proof of no-fault insurance. State v. Aguinaldo, 71 Haw. 57, 64 (1989); HRS §§ 286-116, 286-47;
[COL] 4. Officer Zara did not ask [Wilhelm] a question. [Wilhelm] was, therefore, not subject to custodial interrogation at that time. State v. Wallace, 105 Hawaiʻi 131, 137 (2004).
[COL] 5. Prior to considering [Wilhelm's] statement that she does not have a license as evidence and after considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement, the Court determined that the statement was voluntarily made. State v. Green, 51 Haw. 260, 264 (1969); HRS § 621-26.
The record reflects that Wilhelm made the statement
while stopped and temporarily detained at a roadblock. Upon
approaching Wilhelm's car, Officer Zara was statutorily required
to ask Wilhelm for her driver's license. See HRS § 286-116(a)
3 We note that, at defense counsel's request, the district court ordered the parties at the conclusion of trial to file proposed FOFs and COLs by September 11, 2024. Wilhelm now contends that the district court erred by entering the FOFs and COLs after sentencing. This argument, which was raised for the first time in Wilhelm's reply brief, is waived. See Campos v. Plan. Comm'n, 153 Hawaiʻi 386, 404, 539 P.3d 170, 188 (App. 2023) ("Points raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived." (citation omitted)).
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2020) ("Every police officer or law enforcement officer when
stopping a vehicle or inspecting a vehicle for any reason shall
demand that the driver or owner display the driver's or owner's
driver's license and insurance identification card.").
Unprompted, Wilhelm freely and unconstrainedly volunteered that
she did not have a driver's license. See Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi at
422, 465 P.3d at 869 ("In order for a statement to be
voluntarily given, the decision to give the statement must have
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 15-MAY-2026 08:25 AM Dkt. 76 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RACHELLE WILHELM, also known as Rachele Wilhelm, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAIʻANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTC-24-005546)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Rachelle Wilhelm (Wilhelm) appeals
from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court) 1
August 28, 2024 "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment" (Judgment).
On April 29, 2024, the Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawaiʻi (State) charged Wilhelm by Complaint with Driving Without
1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
License in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102
(2020). Following a jury-waived trial, the district court found
Wilhelm guilty, sentenced Wilhelm to serve six hours of
community service in lieu of a $100 fine, and waived all
applicable fees upon finding an inability to pay. 2 Wilhelm
appealed.
On appeal, Wilhelm raises two points of error,
contending that "[t]he district court erred when it adjudged
Wilhelm guilty": (1) "on the basis of an improperly admitted
confession"; and (2) "because the evidence adduced at trial was
insufficient to support conviction."
Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we address Wilhelm's points of error on appeal as follows:
(1) Wilhelm contends that the district court erred by
improperly admitting Wilhelm's statement, made to Officer Joshua
Zara (Officer Zara), that Wilhelm "handed [Officer Zara] her
state ID and stated she does not have a license." "[W]e apply a
de novo standard of appellate review to the ultimate issue of
2 The State also alleged that Wilhelm should be sentenced in accordance with HRS § 286-136(b) (2020) for having had two or more prior convictions for Driving Without License in the five-year period preceding the instant offense. The district court found that the State did not prove Wilhelm's prior convictions, and sentenced Wilhelm for Driving Without License as a petty misdemeanor.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the voluntariness of a confession." State v. Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi
413, 422, 465 P.3d 860, 869 (2020) (cleaned up).
A criminal conviction may not be based on an
involuntary confession. Id. at 422-23, 465 P.3d at 869-70.
Wilhelm's statement that she did not have a license was
inculpatory. Pursuant to HRS § 621-26 (2016), "[t]he trial
judge has a duty to determine the admissibility of an
inculpatory statement," and this factual determination must be
made prior to the admission of the statement. State v. Green,
51 Haw. 260, 264, 457 P.2d 505, 508 (1969) (citations omitted).
Here, as the State concedes, the district court did not make the
requisite factual determination prior to admitting Wilhelm's
statement into evidence.
The admission of Wilhelm's statement was therefore
erroneous, and we must consider whether the erroneous admission
of Wilhelm's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi at 435, 465 P.3d at 882 (explaining that
an erroneous admission of a confession is subject to the
harmless error analysis on appeal). "In applying the harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the court is required to
examine the record and determine whether there is a reasonable
possibility that the error complained of might have contributed
to the conviction." State v. Jones, 148 Hawaiʻi 152, 170, 468
P.3d 166, 184 (2020) (citation omitted).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The district court's voluntariness determination is
set forth in the following findings of fact (FOFs) and
conclusions of law (COLs) 3:
[FOF] 20. Officer Zara approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked [Wilhelm] for her license, registration, and insurance;
[FOF] 21. [Wilhelm] then handed Officer Zara her state identification card ("state id") and stated that she does not have a license;
[FOF] 22. [Wilhelm's] statement was voluntarily made;
. . . .
[COL] 3. Officer Zara was allowed to order [Wilhelm] to produce her driver's license, car registration, and proof of no-fault insurance. State v. Aguinaldo, 71 Haw. 57, 64 (1989); HRS §§ 286-116, 286-47;
[COL] 4. Officer Zara did not ask [Wilhelm] a question. [Wilhelm] was, therefore, not subject to custodial interrogation at that time. State v. Wallace, 105 Hawaiʻi 131, 137 (2004).
[COL] 5. Prior to considering [Wilhelm's] statement that she does not have a license as evidence and after considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement, the Court determined that the statement was voluntarily made. State v. Green, 51 Haw. 260, 264 (1969); HRS § 621-26.
The record reflects that Wilhelm made the statement
while stopped and temporarily detained at a roadblock. Upon
approaching Wilhelm's car, Officer Zara was statutorily required
to ask Wilhelm for her driver's license. See HRS § 286-116(a)
3 We note that, at defense counsel's request, the district court ordered the parties at the conclusion of trial to file proposed FOFs and COLs by September 11, 2024. Wilhelm now contends that the district court erred by entering the FOFs and COLs after sentencing. This argument, which was raised for the first time in Wilhelm's reply brief, is waived. See Campos v. Plan. Comm'n, 153 Hawaiʻi 386, 404, 539 P.3d 170, 188 (App. 2023) ("Points raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived." (citation omitted)).
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2020) ("Every police officer or law enforcement officer when
stopping a vehicle or inspecting a vehicle for any reason shall
demand that the driver or owner display the driver's or owner's
driver's license and insurance identification card.").
Unprompted, Wilhelm freely and unconstrainedly volunteered that
she did not have a driver's license. See Baker, 147 Hawaiʻi at
422, 465 P.3d at 869 ("In order for a statement to be
voluntarily given, the decision to give the statement must have
been a free and unconstrained choice." (citation omitted)).
We conclude the district court was not wrong in
determining that Wilhelm's statement was voluntarily made and
not coerced. Thus, any error in failing to determine
voluntariness prior to admitting Wilhelm's confession was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Wilhelm contends that the record evidence is
insufficient to support conviction. We apply the following
standard in our review of Wilhelm's contention:
[E]vidence 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; the same standard applies whether the case was before a judge or jury. The 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. Kalaola, 124 Hawaiʻi 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)
(citation omitted). "Substantial evidence . . . is credible
evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion."
Id. (cleaned up).
In determining that Wilhelm committed the offense of
Driving Without License, the district court relied upon
Wilhelm's statement that she did not have a driver's license, as
well as corroborating evidence establishing that "[Wilhelm] was
driving a car, that upon being ordered to produce her license
she produced a state id instead, [and] that no driver's license
was produced at the time of Officer Zara's order." We conclude
that this evidence was "of sufficient quality and probative
value to enable a person of reasonable caution" to conclude that
Wilhelm was driving without a license. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 15, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Seth Patek, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Loren J. Thomas, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.