Territory v. Puana

• Citation: 25 Haw. 584
• Decision Date: 22 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 1254.,1254.
• Parties: TERRITORY v. JOHN PUANA.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

25 Haw. 584

TERRITORY

v.JOHN PUANA.

No. 1254.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Submitted July 20, 1920.

Decided July 22, 1920.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEAL FROM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF MAKAWAO.

Syllabus by the Court

A complaint which alleges that the defendant did unlawfully and furiously and heedless of the safety of others drive an automobile and did thereby imminently endanger the personal safety of others (without naming the person or persons whose personal safety was imminently endangered) although substantially in the language of the statute (Sec. 4100 R. L. 1915) is insufficient.

E. R. Bevins, County Attorney of Maui, and Wendell F. Crockett, Deputy County Attorney of Maui, for the Territory.

E. Vincent for defendant.

COKE, C. J., KEMP AND EDINGS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY KEMP, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the district court of Makawao, County of Maui, under a complaint which charged “That John Puana at Paliuli, district of Makawao, County of Maui, Territory of Hawaii, on to wit the 25th day of December, A. D. 1919, did unlawfully, and furiously and heedless of the safety of others drive a vehicle, to wit, an automobile and did thereby imminently endanger the personal safety of others, contrary to the form, force and effect of the statutes in such cases made and provided and particularly Chapter 252 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1915 as amended by Act 50 of the Session Laws of 1915 and further amended by Act 150 of the Session Laws of 1917.” At the hearing the defendant demurred to the charge on the ground that it is indefinite and does not show sufficient facts to constitute a violation of any criminal law of the Territory of Hawaii. The demurrer was overruled, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and after a trial was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $25, from which judgment defendant has appealed to this court on points of law as follows: (1) That the district court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the charge entered against him; (2) that the sentence of the court is void and contrary to law in that the court has no jurisdiction in said cause.

Under the first point of law it is the contention of the defendant that the charge is fatally defective for the reasons (1) that it fails to set forth that defendant drove said automobile on a public highway; (2) that it fails to allege that the person endangered by said driving of defendant was on a public highway and (3) that said charge fails to disclose the name of the injured person who was imminently endangered by said driving of defendant. The section of the statute under which the complaint is drawn (Sec. 4100) is as follows: “Whoever furiously or heedlessly of the safety of others * * * drives or conducts any * * * automobile * * * and thereby imminently endangers the personal safety of any person shall be punished” etc.

We will consider first the question of whether or not it was necessary for the complaint to allege the name of the person whose personal safety was imminently endangered. In Carter v. State, 12 Ga. Ap. 430 (78 S. E. 205), the defendant was convicted of a violation of the statute regulating the operation of automobiles on the public highways of the State. There were three counts in the accusation, the first charging that he operated an automobile “at a rate of speed greater than was reasonable and proper,” the second that he operated an automobile “so as to endanger the life and limb of persons and the safety of property,” and the third that he...