State v. Padilla ( 2012 )

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-30719
30-APR-2012
08:33 AM
NO. SCWC-30719
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALEJANDRO PADILLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(ICA NO. 30719; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00147)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.;
with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting)
Petitioner Alejandro Padilla (“Padilla”) seeks review
of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s August 2, 2011 Judgment on
Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 29, 2011 Summary Disposition
Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s
July 21, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged
Padilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an
Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (“HRS”)
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
§§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007).1 We accepted Padilla’s
application for writ of certiorari and now affirm the ICA’s
Judgment on Appeal.
On certiorari, Padilla 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. 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 §
291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Padilla’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1)
charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea.
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
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
However, the District Court adjudged Padilla 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 Padilla 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