State v. Tong

── State v. Tong ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 13-APR-2026 09:04 AM Dkt. 81 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE TONG, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) George Tong was convicted of Criminal Property Damage in the Second Degree1 after a bench trial.2 He appeals from the Amended Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence and the Free Standing Order of Restitution entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. We affirm. Tong was charged with damaging the property of American Savings Bank (ASB). He allegedly applied glue to an ASB automatic teller machine (ATM) on February 17, 2023. During his 1 Hawaii Revised Statutes § 708-821 (2014) provides: (1) A person commits the offense of criminal property damage in the second degree if by means other than fire: . . . . (b) The person intentionally or knowingly damages the property of another, without the other's consent, in an amount exceeding $1,500[.] 2 The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER trial he admitted he "spilled the glue or squeezed the glue all over the machine." He was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to four years of probation. A restitution hearing was held. The Amended Judgment of Conviction and the Order of Restitution were entered on April 24, 2024. This appeal followed. Tong contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting the amount of a proposal to fix the ATM; and (2) finding that Tong knew he was causing more than $1,500 of damage to the ATM. (1) State's Exhibit 11 was a redacted copy of Diebold Nixdorf's proposal to fix the damaged ATM for $7,435.68. When the State offered Exhibit 11 into evidence, Tong objected "as to foundation, hearsay, and confrontation." On appeal, Tong argues Exhibit 11 "is hearsay" and "without requiring a witness to explain the bases for that amount, the Circuit Court denied Tong his Due Process right to a Fair Trial." Exhibit 11 was offered to prove the amount of damage to the ATM. One of ASB's employees testified that Diebold Nixdorf "repair and maintain our ATMs." ASB's ATM operations manager, Laura Ibanes, authenticated Diebold Nixdorf's proposal as the one she signed to authorize the repair. Exhibit 11's $7,435.68 amount was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove what Diebold Nixdorf thought the repair would cost; it proved the amount ASB paid its regular vendor to fix the ATM that Tong damaged. The declarant was Ibanes; she authorized the $7,435.68 repair. The trial court correctly stated, "the amount that she approved is obviously relevant." The trial court noted that Tong "will have the opportunity to question [Ibanes] as to why she approved that amount." On cross-examination, Ibanes confirmed that Diebold Nixdorf was "the company that services all of the ATM machines" and that "a service technician was deployed to American Savings Bank to determine the amount of damages in this case[.]" She was not asked why she