Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2012
Summary: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Petitioner Alejandro Padilla ("Padilla") seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal's August 2, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 29, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit's July 21, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes ("HRS") 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007). 1
Summary: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Petitioner Alejandro Padilla ("Padilla") seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal's August 2, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 29, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit's July 21, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes ("HRS") 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007). 1 ..
More
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Petitioner Alejandro Padilla ("Padilla") seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal's August 2, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 29, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit's July 21, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes ("HRS") §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3)(2007).1 We accepted Padilla's application for writ of certiorari and now affirm the ICA's Judgment on Appeal.
On certiorari, Padilla contends that the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in either an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) or an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge. In State v. Nesmith, we recently held that (1) mens rea must be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation; and (2) mens rea need not be alleged (or proven) in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge, as the legislative intent to impose absolute liability for an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) offense plainly appears. State v. Nesmith, Hawai`i ___, ___ P.3d ___ (2012). Accordingly, the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Padilla's HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea.
However, the District Court adjudged Padilla guilty of violating both HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) can each serve as the basis for a conviction under HRS § 291E-61. See State v. Grindles, 70 Haw. 528, 530-31, 777 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1989); State v. Caleb, 79 Haw. 336, 339, 902 P.2d 971, 974 (1995); State v. Mezurashi, 77 Haw. 94, 98, 881 P.2d 1240, 1244 (1994). Insofar as the HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Padilla does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, his conviction still stands.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA's Judgment on Appeal is affirmed.
