State v. Warner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-JUL-2022
08:18 AM
Dkt. 72 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CHRISTOPHER J. WARNER, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
WAILUKU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 2DTA-19-01281)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Christopher J. Warner (Warner)
appeals from the October 13, 2020 Judgment and Notice of Entry of
Judgment of the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku
Division,1 convicting him of (1) Operating a Vehicle Under the
Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3) (Supp. 2019),2 and
1
The Honorable Douglas J. Sameshima presided.
2
HRS § 291E-61 provides as follows:
(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; [or]
. . . .
(continued...)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2) Consuming or Possessing Intoxicating Liquor While Operating
Motor Vehicle or Moped, in violation of HRS § 291-3.1(b) (2007).3
On appeal, Warner challenges the district court's
denial of his Motion to Suppress, arguing that the district court
"abused its discretion in denying ruling on the merits of the
Motion to Suppress because the constitutional implications should
trump time [limits of] Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure [(HRPP)
Rule] 12(b)," and "erred in denying the Motion to Suppress
because the roadblock violated [his] constitutional right to
privacy and protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve this
appeal as follows, and affirm.
"Rule 12 of the HRPP dictates when pretrial motions
must be filed in criminal cases and, significantly, when trial
courts must rule on these motions." State v. Chang, 144 Hawai#i
535, 547, 445 P.3d 116, 128 (2019). HRPP Rule 12(b)(3) provides
that motions to suppress evidence "must be raised prior to
trial[.]" (Emphasis added.) HRPP Rule 12(c) establishes the
deadline for filing pretrial motions, providing that "[p]retrial
2
(...continued)
(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten
liters of breath[.]
3
HRS § 291-3.1(b) provides as follows:
No person shall possess, while operating a motor vehicle or
moped upon any public street, road, or highway, any bottle,
can, or other receptacle containing any intoxicating liquor
which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of
which have been partially removed.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
motions and requests must be made within 21 days after
arraignment unless the court otherwise directs." (Emphasis
added.) Further, HRPP Rule 12(f) provides that "[f]ailure by a
party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which
must be made prior to trial, within the time set by the court
pursuant to section (c), or within any extension thereof made by
the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for
cause shown may grant relief from the waiver." (Emphasis added.)
Here, Warner was charged on December 12, 2019, and
appeared for his arraignment on December 26, 2019. After two
continuances, the pretrial conference was held on March 4, 2020,
and the district court set May 6, 2020, as the bench trial date.
The parties then stipulated to continuing the trial to, and trial
commenced on, June 17, 2020. Warner, however, filed his Motion
to Suppress on July 20, 2020, more than five months after his
arraignment and thirty-three days after trial commenced. And
nothing in the record indicates that Warner requested an
extension of time to file his suppression motion.
Moreover, although Warner argues that constitutional
implications should trump HRPP Rule 12(b) time limits,
suppression motions typically raise constitutional issues as the
"motion to suppress was originally conceived under Rule 41(e) of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to protect an accused
against illegal searches and seizures[.]" State v. Kirn, 70 Haw.
206, 208, 767 P.2d 1238, 1239 (1989). Given that a purpose of
the motion to suppress is for the defendant to ask the court to
exclude certain evidence from trial that he or she believes was
seized in violation of his or her constitutional rights, the
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
existence of constitutional issues does not render procedural
filing rules void. See State v. Kim, 68 Haw. 286, 288 n.4, 711
P.2d 1291, 1293 n.4 (1985) (noting Rule 12(b)'s applicability to
a motion to suppress based on constitutional grounds, and that
under HRPP Rule 12(b)(3), "the motion was untimely and should
have been made prior to trial").
Finally, the district court's decision to deny Warner's
Motion to Suppress as untimely was consistent with HRPP Rule 12's
purpose. "The 1975 commentary to the HRPP makes clear that HRPP
Rule 12(e)'s mandate that courts decide suppression motions
before trial has a specific purpose in the course of criminal
proceedings: to preserve the State's right to appeal if the court
grants the defendant's suppression motion." Chang, 144 Hawai#i
at 548, 445 P.3d at 129; see also State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. 438,
441, 746 P.2d 568, 570 (1987) (explaining that, in a criminal
case, the State may "only appeal in those limited instances
established by HRS § 641-13").
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the district court
did not err in denying Warner's Motion to Suppress, and we affirm
the district court's October 13, 2020 Judgment and Notice of
Entry of Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 15, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Ashlyn L. Whitbeck,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Richard B. Rost, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
County of Maui,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
4