State v. Treat, 9004
| Decision Date | 04 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 9004,9004 |
| Citation | 680 P.2d 250,67 Haw. 119 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Forrest TREAT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An indictment for theft in the first degree which tracks the language of HRS § 708-830(7) and alleges that the appellee "did intentionally receive, retain or dispose of property ..." and includes all of the elements of the crime of first degree theft, sufficiently alleges the crime.
2. Where an indictment for theft tracks the statute and alleges all of the elements of the crime therein set forth and, at the time of the ruling upon challenge to it on the ground that it is in the disjunctive, the record shows that the accused was informed through the grand jury transcript of the particular manner in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, there is no violation of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation as required under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and section 14, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii.
Tracy A. Hino, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, on the opening brief and Emlyn H. Higa, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, on the reply brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
Randal G. Valenciano, Deputy Public Defender, Honolulu, on brief for defendant-appellee.
Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice.
This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing an indictment for theft in the first degree. The court below held that the use of the words "receive, retain, or dispose of" made the indictment defective.
Section 708-830(7) provides:
A person commits theft if he does any of the following:
....
(7) Receiving stolen property. He intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another, knowing that it has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner of the property....
The indictment in question tracked the above definition. From the record, it appears that the appellee formally moved for and obtained a copy of the grand jury transcript before the motion to dismiss was considered.
Since all of the elements of the crime of theft in the first degree as defined in HRS §§ 708-831 and 708-830(7) are alleged in the indictment, it is not defective.
Moreover, as we stated in State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 317, 660 P.2d 39, 42-43 (1983):
We think that in determining whether the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc.
...to have been violated, the indictment is sufficient (citing State v. Silva, 67 Haw. 581, 585, 698 P.2d 293, 296 (1985); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 680 P.2d 250 (1984); State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 660 P.2d 39 The prosecution also asserts that the HPC does not require it to allege limitat......
-
State v. Tominiko
...whether his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated"); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120, 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) (concluding that grand jury transcripts fully informed the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him).......
-
State v. Sprattling
...deficient count can be reasonably construed to charge a crime is by examination of the charge as a whole."); State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120, 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) ("We think that in determining whether the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against......
-
State v. Apollonio
...information provided to the defendant up to the time that he or she challenges the charge's sufficiency. See, e.g., State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 120, 680 P.2d 250, 251 (1984) ("We think that in determining whether the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ......