State v. Tuia

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-12-0000685
18-APR-2016
01:05 PM
SCWC-12-0000685
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NATUITASINA CYRIL TUIA,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-12-0000685; 1DTA-12-01552)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Natuitasina Cyril Tuia
(Tuia) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA)
July 3, 2014 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 4,
2014 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court
of the First Circuit’s (district court) July 20, 2012 Notice of
Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (district court
judgment). The district court found Tuia guilty of Operating a
Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and
(a)(3) (Supp. 2012).1 This court accepted Tuia’s Application for
Writ of Certiorari, and we now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on
Appeal and the district court’s judgment.
On certiorari, Tuia contends that (1) his Miranda
rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution
were violated when, while in custody, he was asked by the police,
without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood
alcohol test, which was likely to incriminate himself; (2) his
statutory right to an attorney was violated; (3) his due process
rights under Article I, Section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution
were violated when the police told his that he “shall” be subject
to 30 days in jail if he did not take a blood alcohol test; and
(4) the district court improperly allowed the State to amend its
complaint to allege the requisite mens rea for the HRS § 291E­
1
HRS § 291E-61(a) states in relevant part:
(a) 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;
. . . .
(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two
hundred ten liters of breath.
2
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
61(a)(1) charge and double jeopardy would bar retrial on that
charge.
In this court’s recent summary disposition order in
SCWC-12-897, State v. Kam, we held that “the ICA correctly
concluded that the district court properly permitted the State to
amend” an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege the requisite mens
rea. State v. Kam, SCWC-12-0000897 (Haw. Feb. 25, 2016) (SDO) at
2. Accordingly, the district court properly permitted the State
to amend Tuia’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge to allege mens rea.
Tuia was convicted for violating both HRS § 291E­
61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Either subsection can 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.2s 971, 974 (1995); State v.
Mezurashi, 77 Hawai'i 94, 98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994).
Insofar as the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was properly amended,
and insofar as Tuia does not challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction for violating HRS § 291E­
61(a)(1), his OVUII conviction stands. There is no need for this
court to address his argument that the blood test results
supporting his HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) conviction were obtained in
violation of his Miranda rights, his statutory right to counsel,
and/or his due process rights. Additionally, Tuia’s double
3
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
jeopardy argument is irrelevant because we now affirm his
conviction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s July 3, 2014
Judgment on Appeal and the district court’s July 20, 2012
judgment are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 18, 2016.
Jonathan Burge /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Brian R. Vincent
for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
4