Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's conviction of first degree assault but affirmed his conviction of second degree robbery, holding (1) Petitioner could not be convicted of both robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree inasmuch as the element of infliction of severe bodily injury was common to both offenses, the jury relied on the same conduct of Petitioner to satisfy this element for both offenses, and the findings incorporated in the verdicts were inconsistent; and (2) a specific unanimity instruction was not required in this case. View "State v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with committing the offense of abuse of family or household members (AFHM). Defense counsel moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) the family circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Defendant was arraigned in the family circuit court rather than district court in violation of Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure 10(a); and (2) the complaint was insufficient for failure to define "physical abuse" or "family or household member." The family circuit court denied the motion. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) upheld the judgment of the family circuit court, holding (1) any impropriety on the part of the family circuit court with respect to the arraignment was harmless error; and (2) the charge was sufficient. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and the family court's judgment of conviction and sentence and remanded to the family circuit court to dismiss the case without prejudice, holding (1) because the family circuit court failed to arraign Petitioner in accordance with Rule 10(a), the case must be dismissed without prejudice; and (2) the charge was sufficient inasmuch as it "fully defined the offense in unmistakable terms readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding." View "State v. Basnet" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two drug-related offenses. Defendant was then admitted into a drug court program but subsequently self-terminated from the program. The circuit court found Defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively for a total of fifteen years due to Defendant's history of "extensive criminality." The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment; (2) the circuit court properly considered Defendant's pre-sentence investigation report as a basis for the imposition of Defendant's sentence; and (3) Defendant voluntarily and intelligently self-terminated from the drug court program and waived his right to a termination hearing. View "State v. Kong" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the offense of kidnapping. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, holding that any error in failing to instruct the jury as to first degree unlawful imprisonment was harmless because the jury convicted Defendant of the greater charged offense and, thus, would not have reached the absent lesser offense. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court should have given a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree; and (2) the failure to give the instruction was not harmless, overruling State v. Haanio to the extent that Haanio would hold such error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "Flores v. State " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 261E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the charge against him was jurisdictionally defective because it did not allege the requisite mens rea. The ICA denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded to the trial court to enter an order dismissing the case without prejudice, holding the charge of OVUII in this case was insufficient because (1) the State failed to allege the requisite states of mind of intentional, knowing, or reckless in the charge, and (2) the charge failed to allege an essential fact constituting the offense charged. View "State v. Maharaji" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of robbery in the second degree, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used "force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance." Appellant, who took a handbag out of Nordstrom without paying for it, argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove he had used force with the intent to overcome two of the store's loss prevention officers' physical resistance or physical power of resistance." In this case, no specific unanimity instruction was given to the jury informing them that they were required to agree unanimously as to the identity of the person against whom Appellant used force. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's failure to give a specific unanimity instruction constituted plain error, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Getz" on Justia Law

Petitioner posted bond for Defendant after Defendant was charged with several crimes. When Defendant failed to appear for trial, a judgment and order of forfeiture of bail bond was filed. Petitioner's motion was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed two successive motions for relief from forfeiture of bail bond pursuant to Haw. R. Civ. P. 7 and 60(b). The circuit court denied the motions. Petitioner appealed the denial of his third motion, which was dismissed as untimely. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Hawaii Rules of Civil procedure (HRCP) do not apply in bond forfeiture proceedings; and (2) Haw. Rev. Stat. 804-51 establishes the exclusive means to seek relief from a judgment of forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the HRCP do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings; (2) the statement in Haw. Rev. Stat. 804-14 that a surety may recover its bond at any time by surrendering the defendant is qualified by section 804-51, which provides that once the court enters a judgment of forfeiture, a surety is entitled to relief only by filing a motion within thirty days demonstrating good cause for setting the judgment of forfeiture aside; and (3) Petitioner's last motion was therefore untimely. View "State v. Vaimili" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, terroristic threatening in the second degree, and terroristic threatening in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his request for the written transcripts or the DVD video recordings of his codefendant's trial. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments, holding that Defendant demonstrated that the requested transcripts or DVD video recordings were necessary for an effective defense where the charges against Defendant and his codefendant arose from the same incident and involved identical facts, and the same key witness testified against Defendant and his codefendant at their respective trials. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Petitioner was orally arraigned and charged with excessive speeding in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291C-105(a)(1). After a trial, the trial court found Petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the oral charge failed to allege the required intentional, knowing, and reckless states of mind and that the oral charge was therefore defective. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment, holding (1) because the charge against Petitioner did not allege that Petitioner acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, the charge failed to allege the requisite state of mind; and (2) the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to admit the laser gun reading of Petitioner's vehicle's speed into evidence during trial. Remanded. View "State v. Apollonio" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional no contest plea to operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). The district court convicted Defendant over OVUII under Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Defendant conditioned his plea on his ability to appeal his contention that the charge was defective because it did not allege a state of mind. Defendant's written submission of plea form, however, contained a conditional plea only to the section 291E-61(a)(1) method of proof. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated Defendant's convictions as to both section 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3) but determined that, on remand, the State could proceed to prosecute Defendant under the section 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed the ICA's judgment vacating the district court's judgment but directed that, on remand, the state was precluded from prosecuting Defendant under the section 291E-61(a)(3) method of proof, as, in the circumstances presented in this case, permitting the State to proceed with prosecution under section 291E-61(a)(3) would constitute a breach of the plea agreement in violation of Defendant's due process rights. Remanded. View "State v. Nakano" on Justia Law