State v. Gomes

554 P.2d 235, 57 Haw. 271
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 21, 1976
DocketNO. 5721
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 554 P.2d 235 (State v. Gomes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Gomes, 554 P.2d 235, 57 Haw. 271 (haw 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of rape in the first degree. Defendant-appellant died the day before oral argument on the merits was scheduled in this court. The State has moved that the appeal be dismissed, allowing appellant’s conviction below to stand. The Public Defender, counsel for appellant, is not opposed to dismissal of the appealper se, but argues that such dismissal should be in conjunction with an order vacating the judgment of conviction and the indictment.

No procedure is provided by rule or statute for the substitution of another party to prosecute this appeal. Moreover, should the appeal be sustained it would not result in appellant’s vindication and would result only in a new trial, which appellant’s death makes impossible. The State has no further interest in the enforcement of the judgment, which appellant’s death also makes impossible. Yet the interests of others, including the appellant’s family, are or may be affected by allowing the judgment of conviction to stand as an adjudication of appellant’s guilt without inquiry into the alleged error.

These interests and considerations have led other courts to conclude that, upon the death of a criminal defendant pending appeal from a judgment of conviction, the judgment of conviction will be vacated and the criminal prosecution will be abated, ab initio. We agree with the analysis and conclu *272 sion of the Maine court in State v. Carter, 299 A.2d 891 (Me. 1973). See also the cases collected in Annotation, 83 A.L.R. 2d 864, including later case service; State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La. 1976); Commonwealth v. Eisen, 334 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. 1975); People v. Elauim, 393 Mich. 601, 227 N.W.2d 553 (1975). 1

James F. Nagle, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Donna M. Woo, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

The appeal is dismissed, the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the indictment is dismissed.

1

The federal courts of appeal have consistently held that death during direct appeal abates all criminal proceedings ab initio. The federal rule may be different with respect to unperfected, discretionary appeals, such as petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Dove v. United States, U.S. , 96 S.Ct. 579 (1976), arguably overruling in part Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971). Under Dove, it appears that death prior to the granting of the discretionary writ of certiorari lets stand the conviction, apparently on the theory that, prior to granting of certiorari, the appeal is unperfected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Makaila
897 P.2d 967 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1995)
State v. Dalman
520 N.W.2d 860 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Trantolo
549 A.2d 1074 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
United States v. Chin
633 F. Supp. 624 (E.D. Virginia, 1986)
Howell v. United States
455 A.2d 1371 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Rick Pauline
625 F.2d 684 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
State v. Blake
371 N.E.2d 843 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
554 P.2d 235, 57 Haw. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gomes-haw-1976.