Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A jury found Defendant guilty of committing robbery in the second degree. The jury was not required to find that Defendant had any prior convictions. The prosecution filed a post-conviction motion for the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and introduced into evidence the judgment for Defendant’s prior convictions. The circuit court took judicial notice on file for both of Defendant’s prior convictions and granted the State’s motion for imposition of mandatory minimum period of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, asserting that, in accordance with Alleyne v. United States, a jury should have considered the facts alleged in the prosecution’s motion for imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) repeat offender sentencing under section 706-606.5 enhances the penalty of the crime committed, and therefore, a defendant’s predicate prior conviction(s) must be alleged in the charging instrument; (2) a jury is required to find that the defendant’s prior conviction(s) have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to trigger the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under section 706-606.5; but (3) these rules are given prospective effect only. View "State v. Auld" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). The charging instrument did not allege that the offense took place on a public way, street, road, or highway. Two years later, the Supreme Court held in State v. Wheeler that operation of a vehicle on “a public way, street, road, or highway” is an attendant circumstance of the offense of OVUII and must be stated in the charge. Based on Wheeler, Defendant filed a petition to vacate and set aside the judgment under Haw. R. Penal P. 40, arguing that the complaint was fatally defective, thereby conferring no subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court. The district court denied the Rule 40 petition, concluding that Wheeler did not apply retroactively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the criminal jurisdiction of the district court is provided by Haw. Rev. Stat. 604; and (2) in this case, the district court had jurisdiction over the OVUII charge by satisfaction of the requirements set forth in chapter 604, and the fact that the OVUII charge failed to allege an element of the offense did not extinguish the criminal jurisdiction of the district court. View "Schwartz v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of one each each of harassment and trespass. After a restitution hearing, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the complaining witness, which included restitution for a ten-day period when the complaining witness was unable to work due to her injuries. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated the restitution order, holding that lost wages are not a compensable category of restitution pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 706-646. The Supreme Court vacated in part the ICA’s judgment and affirmed the district court’s order of restitution as it related to lost wages, holding (1) section 706-646 permits restitution for reasonable and verified lost wages in appropriate circumstances; and (2) the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Defendant to pay restitution for wages that the complaining witness lost as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. View "State v. DeMello" on Justia Law