The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of Cynthia E. Trisolini for fourth-degree criminal property damage. This ruling, issued on September 30, 2026, affects individuals involved in property disputes and highlights the legal standards for determining property ownership and restitution in such cases.
Trisolini was found guilty of damaging her neighbor's plants, a conviction that raises questions about property rights and the responsibilities of individuals regarding their neighbors' property. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and witness testimony in property damage cases.
Background
The case began when Trisolini was charged with fourth-degree criminal property damage under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-823. This statute states that a person commits this offense if they intentionally damage the property of another without consent. The incident occurred on January 25, 2023, when Trisolini allegedly climbed over a fence separating her property from that of her neighbor, Heidi Kreplin, and damaged several of Kreplin's plants.
During the trial, which took place on November 7 and 14, 2023, the State of Hawaii presented video evidence and witness testimonies to support their case. Kreplin testified that Trisolini had damaged her plants, including a papaya tree and a plumeria tree, while a neighbor, Courtney Caldwell, provided video footage of the incident. Trisolini's defense claimed that the damaged plants were located within her property line and therefore belonged to her. However, the trial court found Kreplin's testimony credible and Trisolini's testimony lacking in credibility.
The Ruling
The court ruled on several points raised by Trisolini in her appeal. Firstly, it affirmed her conviction for fourth-degree criminal property damage, stating, "The State has met its burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent to damage the property of [Kreplin], and that the damage was intentionally caused by [Trisolini]." The court emphasized the importance of witness credibility in determining the outcome of the case.
Additionally, the court upheld the restitution award of $842.92 to Kreplin for the costs associated with replacing the damaged plants. The court noted that the purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, stating, "the estimate and figures . . . reasonable under this situation and circumstances." However, the court vacated certain probation conditions imposed on Trisolini, indicating that the District Court had exceeded its discretion regarding mental health and substance abuse assessments.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving property disputes. It reinforces the idea that property ownership can be established through credible witness testimony and evidence, rather than solely relying on property boundaries. The decision also clarifies the standards for awarding restitution in property damage cases, emphasizing that victims are entitled to compensation for their losses.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights the importance of the trial court's discretion in determining probation conditions. The court's decision to vacate certain conditions indicates that judges must provide a factual basis for such requirements, ensuring they are reasonably related to the offense and the defendant's behavior.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Trisolini's case will return to the District Court for resentencing, as the appellate court vacated specific probation conditions. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.