State v. Lesher, 8719
| Decision Date | 09 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8719,8719 |
| Citation | 669 P.2d 146,66 Haw. 534 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Debra Ann LESHER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Since the Hawaii No-Fault law requires that a vehicle operated on the public highways have in it a current no-fault insurance card showing that the vehicle is insured, a person who operates such a vehicle on the highways without ascertaining that there is such a card in the vehicle is acting recklessly and, hence, has the requisite state of mind to subject him or her to the criminal penalties prescribed by the statute if the vehicle is, in fact, uninsured.
Gregory K. Tanaka and Peter England Roberts on briefs, Office of the Public Defender, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.
Shirley Smith, Office of Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUM, C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI, JJ., and Chief Judge BURNS, assigned by reason of vacancy.
This is an appeal from a conviction for operating a motor vehicle without no-fault insurance, in violation of § 294-8(a)(1), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). We affirm.
It was stipulated that at the time and place of the offense charged, the appellant was operating a motor vehicle which was not insured under a no-fault policy. Appellant had previously been convicted of an offense under this section of the law. At the time of the present offense, she was operating the vehicle in question without having made any inquiry whatsoever as to whether it was or was not insured.
Section 294-1, HRS, states:
The purpose of this chapter [i.e. the Hawaii No-Fault Insurance law] is to create a system of reparations for accidental harm and loss arising from motor vehicle accidents, to compensate these damages without regard to fault, and to limit tort liability for these accidents.
Were drivers permitted to escape penal responsibility for operating uninsured motor vehicles by failing to inquire as to whether or not there was insurance, the purpose of the statute would be frustrated, since the no-fault system is designed to require that all vehicles being operated on the highways are insured.
Section 702-204, HRS, provides:
Except as provided in section 707-712, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law specifies, with respect to each element of the offense. When the state of mind required to establish an element of an offense is not specified by the law, that element is established if, with respect thereto, a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
Section 702-212, HRS, provides:
The state of mind requirements prescribed by sections 702-204 and 702-207 through 702-211 do not apply to:
* * *
(2) A crime defined by statute other than this Code, insofar as a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offense or with respect to any element thereof plainly appears.
Appellee argues that absolute liability is imposed by § 294-8(a)(1), HRS, which reads as follows:
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. Every owner of a motor vehicle used or operated at any time upon any such vehicle which provides the coverage required by this chapter and shall maintain the no-fault policy at all times for the entire motor vehicle registration period.
Appellant argues that absolute liability is not imposed and that, therefore, she should have been acquitted since there was no proof of "intent" to commit the offense. We cannot accept either position.
Section 294-8.5(a), HRS, provides:
Verification of insurance. (a) Every insurer shall issue to its insureds a no-fault 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arakaki
...of or acted recklessly by not "ascertaining that there was a valid, current no-fault card in the vehicle[.]" State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 537, 669 P.2d 146, 148 (1983). Defendant concedes that there was proof that he was the owner 4 of the automobile involved which was being operated on a ......
-
State v. Lioen
...vehicle acts recklessly if he or she drives the vehicle without taking steps to ascertain if it was insured. State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 537, 669 P.2d 146, 148 (1983), superseded by statutory amendments establishing a good faith defense for car borrowers as stated in State v. Shamp, 86 Ha......
-
90 Hawai'i 130, State v. Lee, 21220
...See supra section III.A.1. Accordingly, Lee cannot rely upon the borrower's "good faith lack of knowledge" defense. In State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 669 P.2d 146 (1983), this court held that, pursuant to HRS § 702-204, 12 the state of mind required for a violation of HRS § 294-8(a)(1) (the ......
-
86 Hawai'i 331, State v. Shamp
...current no-fault card in the vehicle.' " State v. Arakaki, 7 Haw.App. 48, 51, 744 P.2d 783, 785 (1987) 6 (quoting State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 537, 669 P.2d 146, 148 (1983)), overruled on other grounds, State v. Dow, 72 Haw. 56, 806 P.2d 402 (1991). The first two elements of the offense ar......