State v. De Jesus

── State v. De Jesus ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 05-MAY-2026 07:50 AM Dkt. 81 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCOS A. DE JESUS, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT KĀNE‘OHE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTA-23-01261) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Marcos A. De Jesus (De Jesus) appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court) 1 October 1, 2024 "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Judgment). On August 10, 2023, the State of Hawaiʻi (State) charged De Jesus by Complaint with Reckless Driving of Vehicle 1 The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-2 (2020) (Count 1), and Racing on Highways in violation of HRS § 291C-103 (2020). Following a jury-waived trial, the district court found De Jesus guilty as to Count 1, but granted De Jesus' motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count 2. The district court imposed a $1,000 fine, $29,631 in restitution, fees, and ordered De Jesus to take a driver's improvement course. On appeal, De Jesus raises two points of error, contending that the district court erred: (1) "in convicting De Jesus of Reckless Driving . . . because the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that De Jesus operated his vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of persons or property"; and (2) "in convicting De Jesus of Reckless Driving . . . because the [d]istrict [c]ourt did not find that De Jesus acted with the requisite state of mind—recklessly." 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 De Jesus' points of error on appeal as follows: (1) De Jesus contends that there is insufficient evidence to support "that De Jesus operated his vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of persons or property." We apply the following standard in our review of De Jesus' contention: 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER [E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the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) (citations omitted). "Substantial evidence . . . is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Id. (cleaned up). De Jesus specifically argues that the district court's finding of guilt was premised on its erroneous factual finding that De Jesus was "sewin