Posts

Showing posts with the label double jeopardy

Attempted robbery is a crime when you attempt or threaten force, just not when you actually use force

  State v. Sing (HSC June 28, 2024) Background. John Sing and Abraham Sionesini were charged with robbery in the second degree. Wesley Mau was sitting on a bench in Waikiki when Sing and Sionesini came up to him. Sionesini said, “I want your watch” and grabbed the watch on Mau’s wrist. Mau pulled his arm away. Sing says “so what? You gonna call the police?” and lightly smacks Mau’s face. Then Sing and Sionesini walked away from Mau. The police arrested them later that night. Sing was charged with robbery in the second degree. HRS § 708-841(1)(a). At trial, the circuit court, at the request of the prosecution and over Sing’s objection, instructed the jury that if they found Sing not guilty of robbery or could not reach a unanimous decision, it must consider the included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. The jury came back with the included offense. Judge James S. Kawashima was the trial judge. Sing appealed and the ICA affirmed.   The Hawai‘i Penal Cod...

Five different and unrelated cases are still one “sentence” and credit for time served applies to all five, not each individual case

  State v. Vaden (HSC March 15, 2023) Background. Jonathan Vaden was on probation when he was prosecuted for five separate criminal cases alleging various drug and property offenses. After spending several months in jail, Vaden pleaded no contest to every offense except for a class A drug offense. The parties waived a presentence (PSI) report and the circuit court of the second circuit—with the Honorable Judge Richard T. Bissen, Jr. presiding—did not order one. Vaden was sentenced to four years probation in each case with the condition that he complete the Maui Drug Court Program. He petitioned into the program by having his probation revoked and resentenced to a new term of probation.   He was ultimately terminated from the program. His probation was revoked and he was resentenced to prison. He was sentenced to 5 years prison for the felonies, 1 year for the misdemeanors, and 30 days for the petty misdemeanors in the four unrelated cases. Those counts and cases ran con...

Testifying at the Suppression Hearing does not Constitute a Waiver of the Right to Remain Silent at Trial—Even in District Court

State v. Chang (HSC June 28, 2019) Background. David Yen Hoy Chang was charged with driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. He pleaded not guilty and appeared in the district court. There, the district court was informed that the hearing on the motion to suppress would be consolidated with a bench trial. The district court began with the motion to suppress. Honolulu Police Department Officer Jared Spiker testified that he pulled Chang over for driving at little after one in the morning without his headlights on and make an unlawful left turn. When he talked to Chang he noticed the odor of alcohol on his breath and saw that his eyes were red, watery, and glassy. His face was flushed; speech slurred. Officer Spiker asked for Chang’s driver’s license, registration, and insurance, which were produced without difficulty or delay. Officer Spiker informed Chang he was pulled over for driving infractions and invited him to participate in standardized field sobriety tests. ...

The (Re)trials and Tribulations of Christopher Deedy

State v. Deedy (HSC December 14, 2017) Background. You should know this one by now. Christopher Deedy was a federal agent assigned to Honolulu in 2011. Late one night at a McDonald’s in Waikiki, Deedy shot and killed Kollin Elderts. He was indicted with murder in the second degree. At the first trial the prosecution and Deedy requested that no manslaughter instruction be read as an included offense. The circuit court agreed. The jury was hung and a mistrial was declared. Deedy was tried a second time. This time, the court instructed the jury about reckless manslaughter, assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree over the objections of both parties. After six and a half days of deliberation, the jury acquitted Deedy of murder, but was hung on the included offenses. A second mistrial was declared. Before the third trial, Deedy filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that a third trial violates his constitutional rights and the Hawaii Penal Code. The motion was de...

Traffic Infractions Do not Bar Subsequent Prosecutions

Traffic Infractions Do not Bar Subsequent Prosecutions State v. Kalua (ICA September 2, 2015) Background. Manaiakalani Kalua received two citations: one for excessive speeding in violation of HRS § 291C-105(a)(1) and one for regular-kine speeding in violation of HRS § 291C-102(a)(1). Excessive speeding means the vehicle is going either 80 mph or more or the vehicle is in excess of 30 mph of the speed limit. The two charges are based on two separate incidents. In the notice of traffic infraction, Officer T. Koyanagi measured Kalua’s speed by radar and stated that he was going 71 mph in a 55-mph zone and that Officer Koyanagi tried to stop him as the speed limit dropped to 40 mph. In that zone, Officer Koyanagi cited Kalua for going 73 mph, which formed the basis for the excessive speeding. For the regular-kine speeding, Kalua had to answer the citation within 21 calendar days or the court would enter a default judgment. He paid the speeding ticket and the default judgment....

Defective Complaint is Not a Jurisdictional Defect

State v. Kam (ICA November 26, 2014) Background. Cierra Ann Kam was charged as a repeat offender of operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant and operating a vehicle after her license to drive was suspended or revoked for OUI. The complaint failed to allege the required mens rea for each count. After the complaint was filed, the HSC handed down State v. Nesmith , 127 Hawaii 48, 276 P.3d 617 (2012). The HSC held that the portion of the complaint alleging OUI by way of facts (HRS § 291E-61(a)(1)) required the “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” mens rea . Id. at 54, 56, 61, 276 P.3d at 623, 625, 630. In the wake of Nesmith , the prosecution moved to amend the complaint. Kam opposed on the grounds that the defect in charging the complaint was a jurisdictional one that required dismissal of the case all together. The district court granted the motion and the amended complaint was served on Kam. Kam acknowledged receipt and pleaded not guilty. Kam wa...