State v. Kahaunaele, s. 16885

Decision Date23 August 1994
Docket Number16245,16928 and 17222,17320,16448,Nos. 16885,16248,s. 16885
Citation10 Haw.App. 519,879 P.2d 566
PartiesSTATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patsy Blanche KAHAUNAELE, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jordan L. ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene A. ACASIA, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Roland BOLOSAN, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos A. BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell M. LANE, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Florence H. MOSES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtHawaii Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Pursuant to the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-117(a)(2) (Supp.1992) good faith defense and the HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(2)(C) (Supp.1992) reasonable belief defense, the borrower of a motor vehicle has a statutory right to reasonably believe that the borrowed motor vehicle is insured.

Evidence that the borrower borrowed and operated upon a public street a motor vehicle that was not insured under a no-fault policy is evidence of both the reasonable belief defense and the good faith defense. The fact that the borrower did not think about whether or not the borrowed motor vehicle was insured does not negative either defense. However, if one or more relevant facts reasonably required the borrower to inquire, he or she then had a duty to inquire until he or she reasonably believed that the motor vehicle was insured. The borrower's failure to satisfy that duty negatives both defenses.

Emmett E. Lee Loy, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 16885.

Alexa D.M. Fujise, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 16885.

Walter J. Rodby, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 16245.

James H.S. Choi, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee in Nos. 16245, 16248 and 16448.

Richard W. Pollack, Public Defender (Varkey L. James and Toby M. Tonaki, Certified Law Students, University of Hawai'i), on the brief, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 16248.

Lanson K. Kupau, Deputy Public Defender, on the opening brief, and Theodore Y.H. Chinn, Deputy Public Defender, on the reply brief, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 16448.

James S. Tabe, Deputy Public Defender, on the brief, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 17320.

Carolyn Plett, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 17320.

Donald L. Wilderson, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 16928.

Caroline M. Mee, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 16928.

Ronald T. Ogomori, Deputy Public Defender, on the brief, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant in No. 17222.

Patricia A. Loo, Deputy Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 17222.

Before BURNS, C.J., and HEEN and WATANABE, JJ.

BURNS, Chief Judge.

On July 29, 1990, defendant Patsy Blanche Kahaunaele (Kahaunaele) was cited for Operating a Vehicle Without No-Fault Insurance (OAVWONFI), Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-104 (Supp.1992). At the trial on February 10, 1993, it was stipulated that Kahaunaele was driving a vehicle that she borrowed from her boyfriend's sister, the sister operated the vehicle daily, and the sister was not at home when Kahaunaele borrowed the vehicle.

On December 20, 1991, defendant Jordan L. Armstrong (Armstrong) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on May 29, 1992, the evidence presented was that Armstrong was driving the car of a good friend, he "asked [his friend] if there was insurance on it and [his friend] said yes and then [his friend] showed [him] a card[,]" but Armstrong did not see on the card "when [the no-fault insurance] expired or when was the effective date of the card[.]"

On December 29, 1991, Darlene A. Acasia (Acasia) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on June 19, 1992, it was stipulated that Acasia was driving a borrowed truck and that she had not inquired whether or not it was covered by no-fault insurance.

On March 29, 1992, defendant James Roland Bolosan (Bolosan) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on August 14, 1992, the evidence presented was that Bolosan was driving his father's car and assumed that it was properly insured.

On March 29, 1992, defendant Carlos A. Benitez (Benitez) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on July 7, 1993, the evidence presented was that the car was owned by Benitez's co-worker and that the co-worker was in the car and intoxicated when Benitez was cited.

On November 10, 1992, defendant Darnell M. Lane (Lane) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on February 10, 1993, it was stipulated that Lane was driving a vehicle that he borrowed from his friend. The vehicle was owned by Lane's friend's brother-in-law, and Lane did not know the vehicle was uninsured.

On January 26, 1993, defendant Florence H. Moses (Moses) was cited for OAVWONFI. At the trial on June 2, 1993, the evidence presented was that Moses, after knowing her neighbor for approximately two months, borrowed her neighbor's car without inquiring whether the car was insured. Moses had previously been cited, on December 4, 1988 and June 14, 1991, for OAVWONFI. There was no evidence that the other two citations involved her neighbor's car.

The first question is whether these defendants presented evidence of an HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(2) (Supp.1992) good faith defense and/or an HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(2)(C) (Supp.1992) reasonable belief defense. If they did, the second question is whether the State satisfied its burden under HRS § 702-205 (1985) to negative these defenses.

An understanding of the good faith defense and the reasonable belief defense to a charge of OAVWONFI requires an understanding of their legislative and judicial histories.

HRS chapter 294 (1985), which was repealed effective July 1, 1988, stated in relevant part as follows:

§ 294-8 Conditions of operation and registration. (a)(1) No person shall operate or use a motor vehicle upon any public street, road, or highway of this State at any time unless such motor vehicle is insured at all times under a no-fault policy.

§ 294-8.5 Verification of insurance. (a) Every insurer shall issue to its insureds a no-fault insurance identification card for each motor vehicle for which the basic no-fault coverage is written showing the name and make and the factory or serial number of the motor vehicle, policy number, names of the insured and the insurer, and the effective dates of coverage, including the expiration date;.... The identification card shall be in the insured motor vehicle at all times and shall be exhibited to a law enforcement officer upon demand.

§ 294-8.6 Unlawful use of no-fault insurance card. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person who makes, issues, or knowingly uses any fictitious, or fraudulently altered no-fault insurance identification card, or any person who displays or causes or permits to be displayed a no-fault insurance identification card knowing that the no-fault policy was cancelled as provided in section 294-9.

State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 669 P.2d 146 (1983), concluded that

By operating the vehicle in question without ascertaining that there was a valid, current no-fault card in the vehicle, appellant acted recklessly with respect to whether her conduct in driving the vehicle was in violation of § 294-8(a)(1), HRS. There were, accordingly, sufficient facts to sustain her conviction [of OAVWONFI].

66 Haw. at 537, 669 P.2d at 148.

Effective July 1, 1988, HRS chapter 294 (1985) was replaced by an Insurance Code, HRS chapter 431 (1987 Special Pamphlet). The subject of HRS chapter 431, article 10C is motor vehicle insurance. It states in relevant part as follows:

§ 431:10C-104 Conditions of operation and registration of motor vehicles. (a) ..., no person shall operate or use a motor vehicle upon any public street, road or highway of this State at any time unless such motor vehicle is insured at all times under a no-fault policy.

§ 431:10C-107 Verification of insurance: motor vehicles. (a) Every insurer shall issue to its insureds a no-fault insurance identification card for each motor vehicle for which the basic no-fault coverage is written. The identification card shall contain the following:

* * * * * *

(4) Effective dates of coverage including the expiration date.

(b) The identification card shall be in the insured motor vehicle at all times and shall be exhibited to a law enforcement officer upon demand.

* * * * * *

§ 431:10C-108 Unlawful use of no-fault insurance identification card. It shall be a violation of this article:

(1) For any person to make, issue or knowingly use any fictitious or fraudulently altered no-fault insurance identification card; or

(2) For any person to display or cause or permit to be displayed a no-fault insurance identification card knowing that the no-fault policy was canceled as provided in section 431:10C-111 and section 431:10C-112.

Effective June 14, 1988, Act 345, § 1, 1988 Haw.Sess.Laws 659, amended the penalty provisions in HRS § 431:10C-117(a)(2). Most relevantly, it added the following defense:

provided that any person cited under this section shall have an opportunity to present a good faith defense, including but not limited to lack of knowledge or proof of insurance.

On February 16, 1990, State v. Palpallatoc, 71 Haw. 178, 787 P.2d 214 (1990), held that "in order to satisfy the good faith defense of lack of knowledge, the borrower of a vehicle must at least inquire of the owner whether or not the vehicle is insured." Id. at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • 78 Hawai'i 86, State v. Bolosan
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1995
    ...require the duty imposed in the Palpallatoc case." Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 113, in 1990 Senate Journal, at 813-14.9 In State v. Kahaunaele, 10 Haw.App. 519, 879 P.2d 566 (1994), the ICA addressed the lack of knowledge defense in cases that arose after the 1990 amendment was enacted. In its discu......
  • State v. Domut
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • January 31, 2020
    ...summary disposition order on July 30, 2018 affirming the district court's judgment. Domut, SDO at 1. Citing Lee and State v. Kahaunaele, 10 Haw. App. 519, 879 P.2d 566 (1994), the ICA held that Domut was required to present some evidence raising the "good faith lack of knowledge" defense be......
  • 90 Hawai'i 130, State v. Lee, 21220
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1999
    ...directly addressed the question elsewhere, several decisions have hinted at a position conflicting with Shamp. In State v. Kahaunaele, 10 Haw.App. 519, 879 P.2d 566 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Bolosan, 78 Hawai'i at 91 n. 9, 890 P.2d at 678 n. 9, the Intermediate Court of Appeals ......
  • 86 Hawai'i 331, State v. Shamp
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1997
    ...person held a reasonable belief that the car was insured. Bolosan, 78 Hawai'i at 90-91, 890 P.2d at 677-78; 13 State v. Kahaunaele, 10 Haw.App. 519, 531, 879 P.2d 566, 571 (1994). As a Senate Standing Committee report [W]e find it is reasonable for a driver who borrows a car to assume that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT