78 Hawai'i 54, State v. Lau
| Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 17096,17096 |
| Citation | 890 P.2d 291 |
| Parties | 78 Hawai'i 54 STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert Sui Ung LAU, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Stanley MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lisa KANESHIRO, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tadao SEKI, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn C. BISCOE, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin Noris REINHARDT, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hedy L. MOON, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David W. DANIELSON, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin M. HANASHIRO, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth P. MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Y. MURANISHI, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. COEPLAN, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley H. SHODA, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David M. ZINK, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Koyo SAWADA, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tama Isogai CAMANGA, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Patrick OXFORD, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard A. TUCKETT, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Alfred ABUNDO, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy NAKANO, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David E. THOMPSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold E. STEINHOLFF, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles F.H. SOUZA, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert MIELKE, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Chuck M |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Richard Crisman Linstrom and Earle A. Partington, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendants-appellants.
James H. S. Choi, Deputy Prosecuting Atty., on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KLEIN, Acting C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ., and WATANABE, Circuit Judge, in place of MOON, C.J., recused.
In March 1992, plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai'i (State) charged defendant-appellant Herbert Sui Ung Lau with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (DUI), in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-4(a)(1) & (a)(2) (Supp.1992). In addition, the State charged Lau with Driving Without License in violation of HRS § 286-102 (1985). Lau demanded a jury trial and the case was committed for trial in the First Circuit Court. On April 13, 1993, sixteen months after Lau's arrest and prior to his jury trial, Lau filed a motion to dismiss all counts, claiming that his jury trial had not commenced within 180 days from his date of arrest as required by Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 48 (HRPP Rule 48). In the alternative, Lau moved to have the charges dismissed for: (1) failure of the court to establish time limits for disposition of DUI cases as mandated by article VI, section 1 of the Hawai'i Constitution; 1 or (2) violation of his constitutional right 2 to a speedy trial. Thirty-nine other defendants similarly situated and also charged under HRS § 291-4 filed identical motions to dismiss. The circuit court denied all of the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The defendants in this consolidated appeal each take an interlocutory appeal from the circuit court's "Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." The defendants urge that the circuit court erroneously denied defendants' motion to dismiss by: (1) failing to apply HRPP Rule 48 to DUI cases, or in the alternative, by failing to establish or enforce a time limit for disposition; and (2) denying defendants' motion to dismiss on constitutional speedy trial grounds.
We agree with defendants' assertion that HRPP Rule 48 applies to DUI cases. Thus, we need not address the alternative argument as to a time limit for disposition. However, we do not find any violation of defendants' constitutional right to a speedy trial. We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand this case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Defendant-appellant, Herbert Sui Ung Lau, was arrested on December 9, 1991 for DUI. The State charged Lau with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor under HRS § 291-4(a)(1) & (a)(2), 3 and Driving Without License in violation of HRS § 286-102. 4 The District Court of the First Circuit granted his demand for jury trial on February 3, 1992. Lau was arraigned in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'PCITE, 78 Hawai'i 58>>Hawai'i, on March 16, 1992, and his case was set for jury trial on January 3, 1994.
On April 13, 1993, Lau, along with thirty-nine other defendants charged with DUI, filed a motion to dismiss all counts based on the following assertions: (1) the State failed to comply with the HRPP Rule 48(b) six-month time limitation, 5 or in the alternative, the court failed to establish or enforce a time limit for disposition in accordance with article VI, section 1, of the Hawai'i Constitution; 6 and (2) the delay in bringing the defendants' cases to trial was a violation of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. The circuit court consolidated defendants' cases for a hearing on the motions.
A hearing was held on April 16, 1993, and the circuit court orally denied the motions. The court, relying on STATE V. LEATIOTA, 69 HAW. 253, 739 P.2D 930 (1987)7, ruled that HRPP Rule 48 did not apply to DUI charges. In addition, the court ruled that defendants failed to establish that their constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, as defendants made no showing of actual prejudice.
On May 6, 1993, the circuit court filed an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss and an order granting leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-17 (1985). Defendants now appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss.
When interpreting rules promulgated by the court, principles of statutory construction apply. Keaulii v. Simpson, 74 Haw. 417, 421, 847 P.2d 663, 666, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 853 P.2d 542, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 814, 114 S.Ct. 61, 126 L.Ed.2d 31 (1993). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai'i 46, 63, 868 P.2d 1193, 1210, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994). Therefore, interpretation of HRPP Rule 48 is a question of law reviewable de novo.
The lower court's determination that defendants' constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated, as a conclusion of law, is also reviewed de novo. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 873 P.2d 51 (1994).
A. Rule 48
HRPP Rule 48(b) provides in relevant part:
By Court. Except in the case of traffic offenses, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, dismiss the charge, with or without prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not commenced within 6 months from:
(1) the date of arrest....
(Emphasis added.)
Defendants first assert that the trial court should have dismissed their cases pursuant to HRPP Rule 48(b), contending that, contrary to our holding in Leatiota, supra, a DUI charge is a "criminal offense" rather than a "traffic offense" and therefore subject to the provisions of HRPP Rule 48. We agree.
In Leatiota, the defendant appealed from a conviction for DUI, arguing that, because there were delays in trying him, he was denied the right to a speedy trial and the charges against him should have been dismissed pursuant to HRPP Rule 48(b). This court held that DUI is a "traffic offense" and thus excepted from the provisions of HRPP Rule 48. The rationale underlying this conclusion was that HRS § 291-4 appears in a chapter of the HRS entitled "Traffic Violations." Leatiota, 69 Haw. at 253, 739 P.2d at 930.
Under this rationale, all offenses under HRS Chapter 291 would be "traffic offenses" and exempt from dismissal pursuant to HRPP Rule 48. In addition, because HRS Chapter 291C is entitled "Traffic Code," all offenses under Chapter 291C would also be exempt from dismissal pursuant to HRPP Rule 48. However, in light of the many provisions under Chapter 291 and 291C that authorize a term of imprisonment, we believe that such a bright line rule would unjustifiably give dispositive weight to the mere title of a chapter and exclude the very type...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
81 Hawai'i 39, State v. Jackson, 17367
...755 P.2d 466 (1988); cf. State v. Dwyer, 78 Hawai'i 367, 893 P.2d 795 (1995) (remanding for application of Rule 48); State v. Lau, 78 Hawai'i 54, 890 P.2d 291 (1995) (remanding for application of Rule 48); State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 861 P.2d 11 (1993) (remanding case for "entry of appropr......
-
State v. Mundon
...and distinct' therefrom, seeks to protect." State v. Jackson, 81 Hawai`i 39, 54, 912 P.2d 71, 86 (1996) (citing State v. Lau, 78 Hawai`i 54, 60, 890 P.2d 291, 297 ("Notwithstanding the fact that HRPP Rule 48 is `separate and distinct' from its constitutional counterparts, both provisions se......
-
State v. Wilson
...requirements and safeguards and carrying with it penal consequences and constitutional ramifications. See, e.g., State v. Lau, 78 Hawai`i 54, 61, 890 P.2d 291, 298 (1995) (in DUI prosecution under HRS § 291-4, an arrestee faces the possibility of imprisonment under the statute's penalty Thi......
-
Cvitanovich–dubie v. Dubie
...apply to it. “When interpreting rules promulgated by the court, principles of statutory construction apply.” State v. Lau, 78 Hawai‘i 54, 58, 890 P.2d 291, 295 (1995) (citation omitted). 16. The majority contends it is “not uncommon” for the terms, husband and wife, to describe a divorced c......