State v. Mortensen-Young

• Docket Number: SCAP-22-0000045
• Decision Date: 15 March 2023
• Citation: 152 Hawai‘i 385,526 P.3d 362
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raven S. MORTENSEN-YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-22-0000045; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01297) State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lance M. Oshima, Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-22-0000046; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01719) State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marlin Tornquist Tucker, Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-22-0000047; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01463) State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ryan D. Wood, Defendant-Appellee. (CAAP-22-0000048; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01472)
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

152 Hawai‘i 385

526 P.3d 362

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Raven S. MORTENSEN-YOUNG, Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-22-0000045; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01297)

State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Lance M. Oshima, Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-22-0000046; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01719)

State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Marlin Tornquist Tucker, Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-22-0000047; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01463)

State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Ryan D. Wood, Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-22-0000048; CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01472)

SCAP-22-0000045

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

March 15, 2023

Brian Vincent for appellant.

Alen M. Kaneshiro for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case concerns whether Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 805-1 and this court's holding in State v. Thompson, 150 Hawai‘i 262, 500 P.3d 447 (2021), apply to a complaint used to charge a defendant with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) after the defendant was properly arrested without a warrant.

In July, August, and October of 2021, Plaintiff-Appellant the State of Hawai‘i (the State) charged Defendant-Appellee Raven S. Mortensen-Young (Mortensen-Young), Defendant-Appellee Marlin Tornquist Tucker (Tucker), Defendant-Appellee Ryan D. Wood (Wood), and Defendant-Appellee Lance M. Oshima (Oshima) by complaint with OVUII in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court). On December 28, 2021, Mortensen-Young, Tucker, Wood, and Oshima (collectively, Appellees) each filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Defective Complaint and Improper Arraignment" (Motions to Dismiss), arguing that "the complaint ... is not supported by:" (1) "The complainant's signature; or" (2) "A declaration submitted in lieu of affidavit," as required by this court's decision in Thompson. The State filed memoranda and supplemental memoranda in opposition to the Motions to Dismiss. After holding a hearing, the district court orally granted Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss.

On January 12, 2022, the district court issued a "Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Notice of Entry of Judgment) granting Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss. The district court issued its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Defective Complaint and Improper Arraignment" (Order Granting Motions to Dismiss) on January 19, 2022. The district court granted Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss without prejudice.

The State filed a notice of appeal in the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). On April 19, 2022, the State timely filed an application for transfer, which this court granted on May 6, 2022. In its opening brief, the State contends, inter alia, that "[t]he district court erred in concluding that the charging instruments in these cases were required to comply with HRS § 805-1 and thus erred in dismissing these charging instruments on the grounds that they did not comply with that statute." Appellees filed an answering brief disagreeing with the State's arguments, and the State filed a reply brief.

The State's argument that the complaints in Appellees’ cases were not required to comply with HRS § 805-1 has merit. First, this court's holding in Thompson and the plain language of HRS § 805-1 establish that HRS § 805-1 applies only to complaints for a penal summons or an arrest warrant. Second, case law interpreting previous versions of HRS § 805-1 confirm that the statute applies only to complaints for a penal summons or an arrest warrant. In addition, the State properly initiated the criminal proceedings against Appellees pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7.

Accordingly, we hold that the complaints in Appellees’ cases did not have to comply with HRS § 805-1, and the State properly initiated the criminal proceedings against Appellees. Thus, the district court erroneously dismissed without prejudice the complaints in Appellees’ cases.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Appellees were all arrested for OVUII and Appellees all posted bail. Appellees were examined and released after posting bail before 48 hours passed.¹

B. District Court Proceedings²

On July 23, 2021, the State charged Mortensen-Young by complaint with the offense of OVUII in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1). On August 17, 2021, the State charged Tucker by complaint with the offense of OVUII in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3). On August 19, 2021, the State charged Wood by complaint with the offense of OVUII in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3). On October 11, 2021, the State charged Oshima by complaint with the offense of OVUII in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(4).

The complaints, which largely contained the same language, provided:

COMPLAINT

The undersigned Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai‘i charges:

On or about [date of offense], in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai‘i, [defendant's name], did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly operate or assume actual physical control of a vehicle upon a public way, street, road, or highway while under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair his normal mental faculties or ability to care for himself and guard against casualty, thereby committing the offense of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Section 291E-61(a)(1) [and/or (a)(3) or (a)(4)] of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. [Defendant's name], is subject to sentencing in accordance with [ Section 291E-61(b)(1) or (b)(2) ] of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes as a [first or second] offender. [Definition of "prior conviction" in Oshima's case].

I [deputy prosecuting attorney], declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated at Honolulu, Hawai‘i: [Date of complaint].

Appellees filed Motions to Dismiss on December 28, 2021. Appellees all argued that "the complaint ... is not supported by:" (1) "The complainant's signature; or" (2) "A declaration submitted in lieu of affidavit," as required by this court's decision in Thompson.

The State filed memoranda in opposition to Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss on January 3, 2022. The State maintained that the complaints in Appellees’ cases were "made by declaration" as required by HRPP Rule 47(d) and HRS § 805-1.³

On January 10 and 11, 2022, the State filed supplemental memoranda in opposition to Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss.⁴ According to the State,

The premise for the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to [ Thompson ] relies on the proposition that [Thompson ] applies to all complaints. It does not. It only applies to penal summons cases. The language used by the Supreme Court makes it clear that the Court did not intend to bring about a "sea change" as to how criminal complaints are filed when it held in Thompson that the State may not request a penal summons using a complaint that does not comply with [HRS] § 805-1.

The State maintained that

[HRS] § 805-1 deals with arrest warrants. The Thompson court extended this section to penal summons cases which is reasonable given the reference in [ HRS §] 805-1 to [ HRS §] 805-3 which allows the district judge, in the district judge's discretion, to issue a penal summons. It would be absurd to interpret [ HRS §] 805-1 which is entitled, "Complaint; form of warrant" to a case, such as the instant case, in which the defendant had been arrested; bail was set; defendant posted bail and was released. In these cases, there is no need for the State to request that the Court issue an arrest warrant.

These warrantless OVUII arrests are authorized by [HRS] §§ 803-1 ; 803-5; 803-6(a) and HRPP 5(a)(2). These cases do not come under [HRS] § 805-1 which is captioned, "Complaint; form of [warrant]." In OVUII cases, the arrest has already occurred and the [S]tate is not requesting an arrest warrant (which would be absurd).

The district court held a hearing on Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss on January 12, 2022. Counsel for the State and counsel for Appellees made arguments and the district court orally granted Appellees’ Motions to Dismiss:

THE COURT: All right. [The State], as far as the Thompson case though, wasn't it unequivocal that they stated that the -- the complaint was defective because it was not compliant with [ HRS §] 805-1, is that correct? So how can you argue -- at this point if a complaint is defective, then I don't think anything can, if you want to use fruit of the poisonous tree kind of analogy, you can't go further from that if you have a defective complaint.

[THE STATE]: Our response to that, your honor, would be the complaint in Thompson, they asked the State -- they asked the court to issue a penal summons, asked for -- court to -- for some sort of process and that process is pursuant to [ HRS §] 805-1, and we're saying the process that was used in these cases do not come under [ HRS §] 805-1. They come under the other statutes that we set forth in our supplemental memo.

....

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Ready to rule on these matters.

Court finds that all of these cases have the same issue regarding the request to dismiss. Based on the Thompson case the court finds that all of these cases, the complaints are defective as they were not made pursuant to [ HRS §] 805-1. There is no specific affidavit by the complainant in this matter or also a declaration by officer. Court also finds that the police officer is not someone who can make that complaint effective at this point, so they are defective complaints and those cases will be dismissed.

Also on January 12, 2022, the district court filed its Notice of Entry of Judgment.

On January 19, 2022, the district court issued its Order Granting Motions to Dismiss. The district court made the following relevant finding of fact:

4. Review of the Hawaii State Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) reveals that no document containing the complainant's signature, or declaration in lieu of

...