Pleading Not Guilty Essential Before Being Found Guilty
State v. Basnet
(HSC December 18, 2013)
Background. Sushil Basnet was charged by way of
complaint with a single count of abuse of family or household member after he
was arrested one morning at the Himalayan Kitchen. The complaint generated by
the prosecution was captioned in the district court. He was served with a penal
summons to appear before the family court after he bailed out. When he appeared
at the family court he waived the oral reading of the charge, entered a not
guilty plea, and demanded a jury trial. The family court ordered Basnet to
appear before the circuit court.
At the circuit court, the parties appeared and indicated
that they were ready for trial. The circuit court set the case for trial the
next day. They returned, but were told to come back one week later. The
prosecutor then orally moved to amend the complaint to change the heading from
“district court” to “family court.” Basnet objected. A week later, Basnet
argued that under the rules of penal procedure, in a non-felony case, he could
not be arraigned in the circuit court. That had to happen in the district
court. He also argued that the complaint’s failure to define the term “family
or household member” rendered it deficient. The circuit court rejected these
arguments and allowed the prosecution to amend the complaint. The jury found
Basnet guilty and he was sentenced as charged. Basnet appealed and the ICA
affirmed the judgment.
The Tricky Transition to
the Trial Court. The
arraignment is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. The arraignment
formally apprises the accused of the actual charges brought on by the
government and the formal response to those charges. Territory v. Marshall, 13 Haw. 76, 83 (Terr. 1900). It is a critical stage in the criminal
prosecution. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368
U.S. 52, 54 (1961). “A defendant who has been held by district court to answer
in circuit court shall be arraigned in circuit court within 14 days after the
district court’s oral order of commitment following . . . arraignment and plea,
where the defendant elected a jury trial[.]” HRPP Rule 10(a). The HSC held that
this rule requires a new arraignment to the circuit court after the district
court issues its order of commitment to the circuit court. And so, the
family/circuit court’s failure to arraign Basnet was error.
An Arraignment, no big deal
right? Wrong (but only if you Object). “[T]here must be in every criminal case an arraignment and
plea, the object of the arraignment being to identify the accused, inform him
of the charge and obtain his plea, the object of the plea being to make an
issue to be tried.” Terr. v. Marshall,
13 Haw. at 83.
At the same time, the failure to arraign can easily be
waived. State v. Kikuchi, 54 Haw.
496, 510 P.2d 781 (1973). In that case, the defendant never objected to the
absence of an arraignment and went to trial. The HSC held that because he “had
sufficient notice of the accusation and an adequate opportunity to defend
himself in the prosecution he has suffered no prejudice.” Id. at 500, 510 P.2d at 783.
But unlike that case, Basnet objected throughout the course
of his trial. The HSC noted that this was analogous to challenges to the
sufficiency of the complaint or charging instrument. When you don’t object to
it, then the defendant on appeal must show prejudice “or that the indictment or
complaint cannot within reason be construed to charge a crime.” State v. Merino, 81 Hawaii 198, 915 P.2d
672 (1996).
The Complaint is Fine. Basnet also challenged the complaint
itself. He argued that because the charge did not include the statutory definition
of “family or household member,” it was unconstitutionally deficient. The term “family
or household member” includes spouses, reciprocal beneficiaries, former spouses
and former reciprocal beneficiaries, persons in a “dating relationship,” which
is further defined under HRS § 586-1, persons with a child in common, parents,
children, persons related by consanguinity, and persons “jointly residing or
formerly residing in the same dwelling unit.” HRS § 709-906(1). Basnet argued
that this is an essential element and the statutory definition must be included
in the charging instrument. The argument is based on the now-well-established State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawaii 383, 219
P.3d 1170 (2009). The HSC disagreed and simply concluded that the term “family or
household member” is “readily comprehendible to a person of common
understanding.”
“Operate” v. “Family or
Household Member.” It
looks like that the HSC in a few short years has distanced itself from Wheeler. According to the HSC, the term “operate”
in the DUI statute does not provide adequate notice of all the elements to the
offense because the term “operate” is limited to driving or having physical
control of the vehicle on a public way, street, road or highway. HRS § 291E-1.
This is different. The term “family or household member” provides adequate
notice because—as we have learned—it’s readily comprehendible to folks of a
common understanding. Perhaps. It is difficult to discern what is readily
comprehendible and what needs further elaboration in a charging document.
Readily Comprehendible that
Former Roommates are “Household Member”? The term “family or household member” covers a lot of the
obvious: spouses, parents, children, and baby mommas and daddies. But it also
covers former roommates and those in
a dating relationship—yes, folks without kids who were never married and are
just, well, going out with each other. Policy arguments to include those people
aside, is it readily apparent that the term “family or household member” should
include boyfriends, girlfriends, and former roommates? Apparently so.
Comments