State v. Lopez Ruiz

── State v. Lopez Ruiz ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 07-MAY-2026 08:04 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INDIRA D. LOPEZ RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DCW-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Indira D. Lopez Ruiz (Lopez Ruiz) appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order (Judgment) entered on February 22, 2024, in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1/ Following a bench trial, Lopez Ruiz was convicted of Disorderly Conduct, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711- 1101(1)(b) and (3).2/ The charge stemmed from an incident in 1/ The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided. 2/ HRS § 711-1101 (2014) states, in relevant part: Disorderly conduct. (1) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause physical inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person: . . . . (b) Makes unreasonable noise; . . . . (3) Disorderly conduct is a petty misdemeanor if it  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER which Lopez Ruiz allegedly awakened her neighbor in an adjacent unit, Rianne Sanchez, and Sanchez's boyfriend at 1:00 a.m. by yelling, knocking on walls, and, then, by knocking on Sanchez's front door and shining a flashlight through her window. On appeal, Lopez Ruiz contends that the Judgment must be reversed or vacated because: (1) there is not substantial evidence that Lopez Ruiz caused or risked causing physical inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public; (2) the District Court erred by basing its verdict on the contents of a police body-worn camera video played in court on the State's laptop computer, after improperly overruling the defense's foundation objection; (3) even if the trial transcript of the challenged video is considered, there is not substantial evidence supporting Lopez Ruiz's disorderly conduct conviction; (4) the District Court's finding that Lopez Ruiz "merely 'had the intent to cause inconvenience'" proves that she was not guilty of disorderly conduct; (5) judicial bias deprived Lopez Ruiz of a fair trial; and (6) the District Court erred by denying Lopez Ruiz her right to presentence allocution. After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve Lopez Ruiz's contentions as follows, and reverse. Lopez Ruiz's first contention is dispositive. She argues that there is no substantial evidence that she acted with the "intent to cause physical inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public, or reckless[ly] created a risk thereof" because "Sanchez and the people in her residence are not members of the public" for purposes of HRS § 711-1101(1). She further argues that there is no evidence that anyone else was "actually inconvenienc