State v. Yonaha, 11043
| Decision Date | 07 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 11043,11043 |
| Citation | 68 Haw. 586,723 P.2d 185 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James K. YONAHA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A charge of a violation of HRS § 710-1027 (a misdemeanor) which does not allege intent is fatally defective for omission of a necessary statutory element.
Edward K. Harada, Deputy Public Defender, on briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.
Robert F. Murashige, Deputy Pros. Atty., on brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle in violation of HRS § 710-1027.
The oral charge read:
On or about April 4, 1985, in the Honolulu District, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, you, as an operator of a motor vehicle, resisted an order to stop by a police officer, thereby failing to obey his direction while on duty, violating Section 710-1027 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Appellant's counsel moved to dismiss the charge because the element of intent was missing. Section 710-1027(1) reads:
A person commits the offense of resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle if he intentionally fails to obey a direction of a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, to stop his vehicle.
Unlike State v. Robins, 66 Haw. 312, 660 P.2d 39 (1983), and State v. Treat, 67 Haw. 119, 680 P.2d 250 (1984), the charge in this case did not track the statute. It omitted the element of intent which is expressly included in the statute.
Under our holdings in State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (1977), and State v. Faulkner, 61 Haw. 177, 599 P.2d 285 (1979), the charge was fatally defective for failure to allege a necessary element. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nesmith
...(1979) (“Intent is an essential element of the crime of criminal attempt ... No allegation of intent was made.”); State v. Yonaha, 68 Haw. 586, 586, 723 P.2d 185, 185–86 (1986)(“[The charge] omitted the element of intent which is expressly included in the statute.”). These cases are in tens......
-
State v. Sprattling
...Unlike the present case, convictions have been reversed for omitting an entire element of an offense, see, e.g., State v. Yonaha, 68 Haw. 586, 723 P.2d 185 (1986) (reversing conviction because omitted element of intent in reciting the charge); State v. Faulkner, 61 Haw. 177, 599 P.2d 285 (1......
-
State v. Ruggiero
...to cure the omission of essential elements would completely vitiate the rule of law developed in Jendrusch, Motta, and [State v.] Yonaha, [68 Haw. 586, 723 P.2d 185 (1986)]." Elliott, 77 Hawai`i at 311, 884 P.2d at As in Kekuewa, because the complaint in this case "failed to state a materia......
-
State v. Kekuewa
...defendant was convicted]" (some brackets added and some in original) (citation and quotation signals omitted)); State v. Yonaha, 68 Haw. 586, 586-87, 723 P.2d 185, 185-86 (1986) (conviction obtained on oral charge reversed for failure to state "element" of intent; prejudice not addressed); ......