State v. Daniels ( 2012 )

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-10-0000243
30-APR-2012
08:48 AM
NO. SCWC-10-0000243
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WILLIAM A. DANIELS, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(ICA NO. CAAP-10-0000243; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-01712)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.;
with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting)
Petitioner William A. Daniels, Jr. (“Daniels”) seeks
review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s November 10, 2011
Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its October 24, 2011
Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of
the First Circuit’s December 8, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The
District Court adjudged Daniels guilty of Operating a Vehicle
Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Revised Statutes (“HRS”) §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007).1 We
accepted Daniels’ application for writ of certiorari and now
affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal.
On certiorari, Daniels contends that the ICA gravely
erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in either an
HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) or an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge.2 In State
v. Nesmith, we recently held that (1) mens rea must be alleged in
an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of
the nature and cause of the accusation; and (2) mens rea need not
be alleged (or proven) in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge, as the
legislative intent to impose absolute liability for an HRS §
291E-61(a)(3) offense plainly appears. State v. Nesmith, ____
Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d ____ (2012). Accordingly, the ICA gravely
erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS
1
HRS § 291E-61(a) provided, at the time of the alleged offense, the
following:
A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the
influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes
actual physical control of a vehicle:
(1) While under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to
impair the person’s normal mental faculties or ability to care for the
person and guard against casualty;
(2) While under the influence of any drug that impairs the person’s
ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner;
(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of
breath; or
(4) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters or
cubic centimeters of blood.
2
The other questions presented in Daniels’ application are without
merit.
2
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
§ 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Daniels’ HRS § 291E-61(a)(1)
charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea.
However, the District Court adjudged Daniels guilty of
violating both HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Subsections
(a)(1) and (a)(3) can each serve as the basis for a conviction
under HRS § 291E-61. See State v. Grindles, 70 Haw. 528, 530-31,
777 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1989); State v. Caleb, 79 Hawai#i 336,
339, 902 P.2d 971, 974 (1995); State v. Mezurashi, 77 Hawai#i 94,
98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994). Insofar as the HRS § 291E-
61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Daniels does not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, his
conviction still stands.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2012.
Timothy I. MacMaster /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner/
defendant-appellant /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Keith M. Kaneshiro, /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
Prosecuting Attorney,
and Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for respondent/plaintiff-
appellee
3