Background
Chay Sabellona was convicted of excessive speeding in violation of HRS § 291C-105(a) after a bench trial in the District Court of the First Circuit, Wai’anae Division. The sole evidence of his speed came from a Honolulu Police Department officer’s testimony about a reading obtained from a Stalker LIDAR RLR laser device manufactured by Applied Concepts.
At trial, Officer Janghoon Cho testified that he was trained to use the LIDAR by a sergeant certified by the manufacturer, Applied Concepts. He received the LIDAR manual, completed classroom instruction, practiced with the device, and passed an examination. He also testified about the four-step testing procedure he used to verify the LIDAR’s accuracy. Sabellona objected to the admission of the speed reading, arguing the State had failed to lay adequate evidentiary foundation. The district court overruled the objection.
The Court’s Holding
The ICA reversed the conviction. Applying the evidentiary framework from State v. Assaye, 121 Hawai’i 204 (2009), and State v. Amiral, 132 Hawai’i 170 (2014), the court held that the State failed to establish the required foundation for admission of the laser speed reading. Under this framework, the prosecution must prove two things: (1) the training requirements indicated by the manufacturer, and (2) the training actually received by the operator.
Here, as in Amiral, the State did not establish what Applied Concepts’ specific training requirements were, what the LIDAR manual contained, whether the manual contained the manufacturer’s training requirements, or what training Officer Cho actually received beyond how to test the device. Without this foundation, the LIDAR reading should have been excluded. Because the LIDAR reading was the only evidence of Sabellona’s speed, there was insufficient evidence remaining to support the excessive speeding conviction under HRS § 701-114(1)(a), which requires each element be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
- To admit a LIDAR speed reading in Hawaii, the prosecution must independently establish the manufacturer’s specific training requirements—it is not enough to show that an officer was trained by a certified instructor and passed an exam.
- The Assaye/Amiral two-prong foundation test remains strictly enforced: both manufacturer requirements and actual training received must be proven in the record.
- When the only evidence of speed is an improperly admitted laser reading, reversal is required—no other evidence can substitute for the excluded measurement.
Why It Matters
This opinion is significant for Hawaii criminal defense practitioners handling traffic cases. Despite being decided more than a decade after Amiral (2014), prosecutors continue to fall short of the LIDAR foundation requirements. Sabellona demonstrates that the ICA will strictly apply the two-prong test and will not infer that manufacturer requirements were met simply because an officer completed training administered by a certified instructor. Defense attorneys should continue to challenge LIDAR foundation by demanding that the State introduce evidence of the specific manufacturer training standards, not merely testimony that an officer was trained and tested.