Background
Michael Yellen, representing himself, appealed a District Court of the Third Circuit judgment finding for the State on a speeding traffic infraction. A November 2024 notice alleged that Yellen exceeded the speed limit, based on radar measurement.
Yellen requested manufacturer documentation concerning procedures for a laser device and use of a tuning fork to calibrate the radar gun. The State did not produce the materials, and the district court denied Yellen’s motion to compel discovery. Following trial, the court entered judgment for the State.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. Neither Hawaii Revised Statutes section 291D-13 nor the Hawaii Rules of Evidence authorizes the requested discovery. Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 16.1 governs criminal traffic cases, but speeding is a civil traffic infraction rather than a criminal offense.
Although Rules of the District Courts of the State of Hawaiʻi provide traffic-case discovery procedures in the First Circuit, they do not authorize discovery in traffic cases in the Third Circuit. The court therefore held that the district court did not err in denying Yellen’s motion to compel.
The court also rejected Yellen’s due-process argument. The notice advised him that radar was used, and at trial he could have challenged the foundation for radar evidence and cross-examined the issuing officer. Because Yellen did not provide the trial transcript, he did not meet his burden to show that he was denied those opportunities.
Key Takeaways
- Hawaiʻi speeding violations are civil traffic infractions, not criminal offenses.
- No rule or statute authorized the requested discovery in this Third Circuit traffic-infraction case.
- An appellant must provide an adequate record, including relevant transcripts, to establish trial error on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that discovery rights in Hawaiʻi traffic-infraction proceedings are limited and depend on the governing statute and court rules. A defendant may still challenge radar evidence through objections and cross-examination at trial, but must preserve and supply a record demonstrating any claimed denial of that opportunity.