State v. Kilborn

127 P.3d 95, 109 Haw. 435, 2005 Haw. App. LEXIS 537
CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 27, 2005
Docket26312
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 127 P.3d 95 (State v. Kilborn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Kilborn, 127 P.3d 95, 109 Haw. 435, 2005 Haw. App. LEXIS 537 (hawapp 2005).

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Defendant Jeffrey Michael Kilborn (Kil-born) appeals from the December 6, 2003 Judgment entered in the District Court of the First Circuit, 1 finding Kilborn guilty of violating Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-13 (1993), and sentencing Kilborn to pay a $100 fine, a $25 criminal injuries compensation fund assessment, a $7 driver’s education assessment, and a $20 administrative fee.

At the conclusion of the December 5, 2003 trial, the court stated, in relevant part:

The evidence shows that Mr. Kilborn was the driver of a vehicle, a black truck, Toyota brand pickup truck, which was reversing out of the warehouse on Kaihikapu Street. Also that was occupied by Midnight Rod and Custom. 2 And in doing so, that vehicle operated by Mr. Kilborn did strike a Nissan pickup truck, white in col- or, which was being worked on at Midnight Rod and Custom. And, that that Nissan pickup truck was at the time attended by [Bobby] George, who was the person working upon that vehicle.
And that after Mr. Kilborn’s vehicle, in reversing, struck the Nissan truck, Mr. Kilborn’s vehicle did move forward, came to a stop, and then reversed completely out of the warehouse while Mr. George was *437 attempting to stop Mr. Kilborn and his vehicle. Mr. George did observe Mr. Kil-born in the vehicle as the driver. There was one other person as a passenger who did remark, and was heard to remark by Mr. George, that Mr. Kilborn’s truck had struck another vehicle.
That Mr. Kilborn did remove himself from the scene, did not return to the scene, did not remain at the scene, and in so removing himself, failed to give his name, address, and other pertinent information required by HRS section 291C-14(a) to anyone at the scene, did not report the incident thereafter to the Honolulu Police Department.
And it was only after the police department, upon further investigation approximately a month later, was able to locate Mr. Kilborn and obtain further information, the statements from him, and also Officer Lung observed the damages that she has testified to on Mr. Kilborn’s truck, which was located at his workplace on the 17th of July 2003.

(Footnote added.)

Thereafter, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney stated, “Your Honor, the damages in this case came out to eight hundred forty-six dollars and eighty-eight cents. We’re asking for restitution[J”' The court responded, in relevant part:

A restitution hearing will be scheduled and upon determination of any-restitution issue, ... I will delay any requirement on the part of Mr. Kilborn to pay any fines until such time that the restitution issue is formally and finally determined. And then any issues as far as stay pending appeal and so forth will be finalized at that time.
So, in other words, the obligation to pay ... does not kick in as yet, in terms of the fines and other costs.
[[Image here]]
THE COURT: ....
[[Image here]]
I think the easier way to go would be this: that payment of non-restitution monetary amounts will simply be stayed until such time that they show restitution is finally addressed by the Court, this Court. To the extent that a notice of appeal is filed and the parties determine that such notice places the consideration of all restitution issues in abeyance, so be it. And by definition, the obligation to pay any fines and other costs would also be held in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal.

The Judgment ordered a hearing on restitution to occur on February 5, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on January 5, 2004. This appeal was assigned to this court on November 17, 2004. 3

HRS § 291C-13 (1993) states, in relevant part:

Accidents involving damage to vehicle or property. The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible, but shall forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section 291C-14. Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. Any person failing to stop or to comply with the requirements of this section under such circumstances shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than ten days for a first eonviction[.]

HRS § 291C-14 (1993) states:

Duty to give information and render aid. (a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give the driver’s name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle the driver is *438 driving, and shall upon request and if available exhibit the driver’s license or permit to drive to any person injured in the accident or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the accident and shall give such information and upon request exhibit such license or permit to any police officer at the scene of the accident or who is investigating the accident and shall render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of the person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person; provided that if the vehicle involved in the accident is a bicycle, the driver of the bicycle need not exhibit a license or permit to drive.
(b) In the event that none of the persons specified is in condition to receive the information to which they otherwise would be entitled under subsection (a), and no police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle involved in the accident after fulfilling all other requirements of section 291C-12, 291C-12.5, or 291C-12.6, and subsection (a) of this section, insofar as possible on the driver’s part to be performed, shall forthwith report the accident to the nearest police officer and submit thereto the information specified in subsection (a).

HRS § 701-107 (1993) states, in relevant part:

§ 701-107 Grades and classes of offenses. (1) An offense defined by this Code or by any other statute of this State for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized constitutes a crime. Crimes are of three grades: felonies, misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors.

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

Related

State v. Rivero-Garcia
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026
State v. Wong
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2026
State v. Slavik.
501 P.3d 312 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Amar
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2021
State v. Brown
478 P.3d 297 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Yuen
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2020
Spooner v. State
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2020
In re Partington and McPherson.
146 Haw. 243 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Stone
Hawaii Supreme Court, 2014
State v. Hern
323 P.3d 1241 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2013)
State v. Timmons
Hawaii Supreme Court, 2012
State v. Hern
Hawaii Supreme Court, 2012
State v. DeMello
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2010

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 P.3d 95, 109 Haw. 435, 2005 Haw. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kilborn-hawapp-2005.